"Someone Just Leaked Obama's Rules for Assassinating American Citizens"

[SA210]

Someone Just Leaked Obama's Rules for Assassinating American Citizens


For over a year now journalists, civil liberties advocates, and members of Congress have been asking the Obama administration to release internal memoranda from the Office of Legal Counsel justifying Obama's targeted killing program. While the White House continues to deny that such memos exist, NBC is reporting that it has acquired the next best thing: A secretish 16-page white paper from the Department of Justice that was provided to select members of the Senate last June. Michael Isikoff reports that


(http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite)
[t]he 16-page memo (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf), a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.

[T]he confidential Justice Department “white paper” introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches. It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.

Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-leaked-obamas-rules-for-ass (http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-leaked-obamas-rules-for-ass)


NBC link: http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite


Hope/Change/Transparency

[SA210]

Leaked Justice Department Memo Reveals Legal Case for Targeted Killings of US Citizens (http://news.antiwar.com/2013/02/04/leaked-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-targeted-killings-of-us-citizens/)

Memo greatly expands the meaning of "imminence" to allow for targeted killings without evidence of an active terror plot

by John Glaser, February 04, 2013

http://news.antiwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Obama-Brennan2.jpg (http://news.antiwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Obama-Brennan2.jpg)



The US government can order the killing of American citizens even when there is no active intelligence accusing them of carrying out a specific terrorist attack, according to a confidential Justice Department legal memo obtained by NBC News (http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite).

The memo, or “white paper,” concludes that assassinations of American citizens are legal if the US government says they are “senior operational leaders” or al-Qaeda or “an associated force.” The Executive Branch can keep this information secret though, and no checks or balances from other branches of government are necessary.

The memo addresses long-standing questions about the Obama administration’s drone war that have been increasingly pronounced ever since a US drone strike in September 2011 killed US citizens and alleged al-Qaeda members Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, and weeks later Awlaki’s 16-year old (http://news.antiwar.com/2012/10/24/top-obama-adviser-awlakis-16-year-old-son-should-have-a-more-responsible-father-if-he-wants-us-not-to-kill-him/) son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki.

Without submitting the evidence to a court, without any oversight from Congress, and without even making it’s legal reasoning available to the public, the President can ignore the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which says that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Standard rules of international law demand that an imminent threat of an immediate attack is required in order to legally initiate the use of force in self-defense. But the Obama administration has greatly expanded the meaning of the word “imminence” to allow for his drone war, taking place mainly in Pakistan and Yemen.

The memo refers to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than what has traditionally been required, like actual intelligence an ongoing plot against the US.

“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states, contradicting conventional international law.

Instead, so long as an “informed, high-level” US official claims the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” that pose a threat and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities,” then the President can order his assassination. The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”

Furthermore, the memo declares that these Executive Branch decision will not be subject to any judicial oversight: “There exists no appropriate judicial forum to evaluate these constitutional considerations.”

“This is a chilling document,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU. “Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen…It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated.”

In particular, Jaffer said, the memo “redefines the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning.”

The memo marks an extraordinary and unprecedented expansion of Executive power and the “limits” it imposes on the use of that power are insubstantial. For example, it says that the targeted assassination of American citizens can only take place if US officials decide that capturing the suspect is not feasible. But feasibility is entirely defined and decided upon by unchecked US officials in secret.

Last month, a federal judge rejected (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/02/us-newyorktimes-drone-lawsuit-idUSBRE9010OV20130102) The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/us/judge-rules-memo-on-targeted-killing-can-remain-secret.html?smid=tw-nytimesworld&seid=auto)‘ bid to force the US government to disclose more information about its drone war, and specifically its legal justifications.
Although she threw out the case, US District Judge Colleen McMahon noted that such government disclosures could help the public understand the “vast and seemingly ever-growing exercise in which we have been engaged for well over a decade, at great cost in lives, treasure, and (at least in the minds of some) personal liberty.”

“I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret,” she wrote.

“The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me,” McMahon said, referring to the nightmarish wonderland (http://www.salon.com/2010/09/15/assassinations_6/) in which people are sentenced to death before a verdict from a jury is in.

http://news.antiwar.com/2013/02/04/leaked-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-targeted-killings-of-us-citizens/

[SA210]

MSNBC...Obama's DOJ White Paper PDF

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf

[ElNono]

They sure took Hamdi for a spin... the part when the DoJ claims there's 'no appropriate forum to evaluate these constitutional considerations' (so we'll just assume we're right) certainly is the cherry on top... disgraceful, tbh...

I really doubt the founding fathers left the overruling power to deny the 4th and 5th amendment protections to the whims of an 'informed, high level government official'...

[ElNono]

ACLU take on the memo:

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/justice-departments-white-paper-targeted-killing

[ElNono]

Another good read here:

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/the-fine-print-in-the-presidents-license

[Expert]

And the third angel (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd024.htm#001) sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd170.htm#006), burning as it were a lamp (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd223.htm#007), and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters;

And I beheld, and heard an angel (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd024.htm#001) flying through the midst of heaven (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd170.htm#006), saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three angels, which are yet to sound!

[ChumpDumper]

Unless they are going to call a drone strike on me, I'm having trouble giving a shit.

[Winehole23]

Ring of Gyges scenario: what will the most powerful person in the world do when he knows no one can review his decisions? It's an awful temptation to power and an unjust abrogation of basic rights. It's not hard to imagine a corrupt administration using this policy to remove political enemies from action.

[Winehole23]

Unless they are going to call a drone strike on me, I'm having trouble giving a shit.well of course, it's all about you.

[boutons_deux]

btw, for all you right-wingers who say the liberals are keeping quiet, the dyke-you-love-to-hate Rachel Madcow had Isikoff (http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite)break the story on her show before it was on the website. and Madcow really belabored the controversy in detail.

Somehow, people are very concerned about the US govt murdering Americans without charge or trial, but not as concerned about US govt murdering non-Americans. "American citizen rights" and American sovereignty are VERY different from "human rights" and other countries' sovereignty (which basically don't exist for Americans)

[boutons_deux]

and here's another left-winger also bitching about Barry's death squads

JSoc: Obama's secret assassins

The president has a clandestine network targeting a 'kill list' justified by secret laws. How is that different than a death squad?They interview former JSoc assassins, who are shell-shocked at how the "kill lists" they are given keep expanding, even as they eliminate more and more people.

Our conventional forces are subject to international laws of war: they are accountable for crimes in courts martial; and they run according to a clear chain of command. As much as the US military may fall short of these standards at times, it is a model of lawfulness compared with JSoc, which has far greater scope to undertake the commission of extra-legal operations – and unimaginable crimes.

JSoc morphs the secretive, unaccountable mercenary model of private military contracting, which Scahill identified in Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army, into a hybrid with the firepower and intelligence backup of our full state resources. The Hill reports that JSoc is now seeking more "flexibility" to expand its operations globally.

JSoc operates outside the traditional chain of command; it reports directly to the president of the United States. In the words of Wired magazine:

"JSoc operates with practically no accountability."

Scahill calls JSoc the president's "paramilitary". Its budget, which may be in the billions, is secret.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/03/jsoc-obama-secret-assassins (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/03/jsoc-obama-secret-assassins)

AQ embarrassed the hell out of compromised, politicized NSA/FBI/CIA/DoD/dubya-dickhead on 9/11, now 1000s of foreign innocents will die for decades.

And if any of you think Bishop Gecko would have stopped JSOC death squads, GFY.

[Drachen]

Unless they are going to call a drone strike on me, I'm having trouble giving a shit.

Really?

Yeah, Chump that is pretty bad.

I heard about this this morning on NPR, seems pretty crappy. I don't like it. I haven't read the articles yet (been busy so far this morning). Will get back on the thread when I read them.

[SA210]

and Madcow really belabored the controversy in detail.



Maddow is someone I can actually stomach on the msm, the MSNBC link is posted in the original post at the bottom. She did a great job, and she has done stories before on Obama and his double speak, suppression of Ron Paul voters, etc, which I have posted here as well.

I hope she keeps going after this issue and that it doesn't just fade away. The other mainstream hacks need to follow her lead.

Here is the Rachel Maddow segment
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show#50700425

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously, as long as this country remains on a quasi war footing, things like this are going to be produced. No executive after Bush will want to be the one who didn't try everything possible to stop another terra attack on the US, and no congress will want to be the one who stood in the executive's way.

[Blake]

Really?

Yeah, Chump that is pretty bad.

I heard about this this morning on NPR, seems pretty crappy. I don't like it. I haven't read the articles yet (been busy so far this morning). Will get back on the thread when I read them.

Sorry, I'm having trouble getting fired up over it too. Is there any particular reason why we as a whole should be upset?

Were you guys also upset that Bin Laden didn't get a fair trial?

[TeyshaBlue]

Sorry, I'm having trouble getting fired up over it too. Is there any particular reason why we as a whole should be upset?

Were you guys also upset that Bin Laden didn't get a fair trial?

4th amendment. Frog. Warm water.

[ChumpDumper]

Sorry, I'm having trouble getting fired up over it too. Is there any particular reason why we as a whole should be upset?

Were you guys also upset that Bin Laden didn't get a fair trial?Red team is still trying to give Clinton shit for not assassinating bin Laden and anyone around him with cruise missiles.

[TeyshaBlue]

Red team is still trying to give Clinton shit for not assassinating bin Laden and anyone around him with cruise missiles.

Really? Not really? Who is this red team?

[Th'Pusher]

4th amendment. Frog. Warm water.

I agree it's precarious, but I also agree with chump that drone programs will continue under the veil of security for exactly the reasons he said. Now I just sit back, relax and let the apathy run over me.

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm certainly not blue.

Am I red?

http://i.imgur.com/ri5yq.gif

[TeyshaBlue]

I agree it's precarious, but I also agree with chump that drone programs will continue under the veil of security for exactly the reasons he said. Now I just sit back, relax and let the apathy run over me.

Not me. I'm going to start posting memes. It's super-effective!

[ChumpDumper]

Really? Not really? Who is this red team?Really. It's the standard response when asked why didn't Bush do anything about him before 9/11.

It's just the kind of thing every president from now on is going to want to avoid politically.

[Th'Pusher]

Not me. I'm going to start posting memes. It's super-effective!

:lol

[Blake]

4th amendment. Frog. Warm water.

5th amendment? Or did you really mean 4th?

[TeyshaBlue]

5th amendment? Or did you really mean 4th?

Actually, both.:toast

[TeyshaBlue]

Really. It's the standard response when asked why didn't Bush do anything about him before 9/11.

It's just the kind of thing every president from now on is going to want to avoid politically.

Maybe. I would think this kind of administrative spin is the kind of thing every president from now on would want to avoid. Who wants to be known as the Prez that codified assassination?

[SA210]

Fox News calling out Democrats in this video segment for going after Bush on torture and war crimes, but staying silent when Obama murders Americans, etc.
(The claim is what's worse.. torturing three people or murdering Americans?)

White House, Justice officials defend drone program after release of memo



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/05/senators-threaten-confrontation-with-obama-nominees-over-drone-concerns/

The White House and Justice Department on Tuesday adamantly defended the administration's authority to use unmanned drones to kill terror operatives -- even if those operatives are U.S. citizens -- following the release of a controversial memo on the program.

President Obama's advisers are also trying to tamp down concerns about the targeted killings ahead of the confirmation hearing Thursday for CIA director nominee John Brennan -- the counterterrorism adviser and drone-program supporter who has come under criticism from Democrats.

Pressed repeatedly about the complicated constitutional and legal questions raised by the targeted killing of Americans, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday that the president takes those issues "very seriously."

But he noted that Al Qaeda is in a "state of war against us," and defended what he described as "targeted strikes against specific Al Qaeda terrorists."

"We conduct those strikes because they are necessary to mitigate ongoing actual threats, to stop plots, to prevent future attacks and to save American lives," Carney said. "These strikes are legal, they are ethical and they are wise."

Carney would not describe the legal criteria for ordering those drone strikes.

A Justice Department official, though, told Fox News there are at least three conditions that have to be met in order for a strike to be ordered -- there has to be an "imminent" threat, the target has to have engaged in terrorist activities, and the target has to be unable to be captured.

Separately, Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that the government is "confident that we're doing so in a way that is consistent with federal and international law."
Under Obama, the U.S. drone program has ramped up dramatically since the George W. Bush administration. It has become one of the most important tools in the administration's counterterrorism campaign -- particularly in Pakistan, but also in the expanding fronts of the war against Al Qaeda and its affiliates.

Scrutiny of the program follows a 2011 drone strike in Yemen that killed two Americans -- Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. It marked the first time an American citizen was targeted for death by a U.S. president and killed in a drone strike.

On Monday, a bipartisan group of 11 senators wrote a letter to Obama asking for "any and all legal opinions" that describe the basis for the authority to "deliberately kill American citizens."

The questions come in advance of Brennan's confirmation hearing Thursday before the Senate intelligence committee. Several of the authors of the drone letter sit on that committee. Obama's nominee for Defense secretary, Chuck Hagel, also had his confirmation hearing last week. The letter Monday made a blunt threat suggesting that withholding information on drones could imperil those nominations.

"The executive branch's cooperation on this matter will help avoid an unnecessary confrontation that could affect the Senate's consideration of nominees for national security positions," the senators wrote.

As the letter was released, a Justice Department document surfaced in news reports describing the administration's drone-attack authority.

As first reported Monday night by NBC News, the memo says it is legal for the government to kill U.S. citizens abroad if it believes they are senior Al Qaeda leaders continually engaged in operations aimed at killing Americans -- even if there is no intelligence pointing to an active plot against America.

The 16-page document says that delaying action against individuals continually planning to kill Americans would create an unacceptably high risk. It adds that the threat posed by Al Qaeda and its associated forces demands a broader concept of when a person continually planning terror attacks presents an imminent threat.

It's unclear whether that will satisfy lawmakers' concerns. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the intelligence committee, said in a statement Tuesday that the document was already provided to the committee last year.

"The committee continues to seek the actual legal opinions by the Department of Justice that provide details not outlined in this particular white paper," she said. Feinstein was not among the senators who signed the letter to Obama Monday.

While Awlaki was considered a powerful terror operative for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, he was never charged. In their letter Monday, the senators said they believe there are "circumstances" where a U.S. president can use "lethal force" against Americans who "choose to take up arms" against their country, "just as President Lincoln had the authority to direct Union troops to fire upon Confederate forces during the Civil War."

But they said "it is vitally important" for Congress and the public to understand how the administration interprets the limits on that power. They complained that the administration has ignored prior requests for legal opinions from the Justice Department.

Brennan, a vocal supporter of the drone program and other controversial counterterrorism tools dating back to the George W. Bush administration, is facing a level of criticism from Democrats that no other Obama nominee has encountered. Eight Democrats and three Republicans penned the letter to Obama Monday. One of them, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has previously pressed Brennan on the drone issue.

Another, Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said last week he was "deeply disappointed" coming out of a meeting with Brennan. He claimed the White House counterterrorism adviser was "unprepared" to discuss a recent report on the CIA detention and interrogation program.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/05/senators-threaten-confrontation-with-obama-nominees-over-drone-concerns/#ixzz2K4HbM2eK

[Drachen]

Not me. I'm going to start posting memes. It's super-effective!

make sure you post about 10 a day on this subject on facebook alone.

[SA210]

Ouch...scorching article from Salon.com

Too big to Curtail

Who can’t be on Obama’s “kill list”? (http://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/who_cant_be_on_obamas_kill_list/)

A DOJ white paper reveals White House rationalization for drone strikes -- and an out of control power structure

By David Sirota (http://www.salon.com/writer/david_sirota/)

Last month, America saw in graphic detail how the destructive notion of Too Big to Jail (http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/are_banks_too_big_to_jail/) means for an executive branch that refuses to prosecute a single banker connected to the financial meltdown. Today, with the release (http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite) of a secret Justice Department white paper about the president’s so-called kill list, we are learning about another radical jurisprudential notion being pioneered by the Obama administration. Call it Too Big to Curtail.

That’s the most accurate label to describe the machinery of the government’s ever-expanding drone war. As the white paper asserts, that war — which is likely creating more terrorists than it is neutralizing (http://www.salon.com/2013/01/25/actually_obama_does_advocate_perpetual_war/) — cannot be curtailed by laws or the Constitution. Therefore, the argument goes, the president no longer merely claims the power to detain and torture people without due process, nor does he merely claim the power to execute American citizens without indictment or trial. Those extra-constitutional powers, which only a few years ago were seen as utterly illegal, are quaint compared to the new assertion that the president can now do all of this without any concrete intelligence suggesting a citizen is linked to terrorist activity.

This is the most harrowing takeaway from the white paper, which was released as a bipartisan group of senators belatedly demands (http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/02/senators-ask-obama-for-legal-opinions-oking-drone-156084.html) answers about the drone war. As NBC News reports (emphasis added):



It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.
The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.




This new claim that evidence is not required to kill someone is the true foundation of Too Big to Curtail. To really appreciate how extreme the whole concept is, understand that it is already blatantly illegal for a president to execute an American citizen without so much as a indictment. Indeed, if the constitutional notion of “due process” means anything at all, at minimum it means at least being formally charged with a single crime.

But in the new white paper, the Obama administration isn’t just laying waste to that most basic of ideas — it is going further and insisting that even within the extra-constitutional “kill list” deliberations inside the White House, the president doesn’t actually need evidence to order someone’s death.

This, of course, creates a legal architecture to justify the administration’s heretofore shocking declaration that, according to the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), “it in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants.” It also explains why Obama’s spokesman said the president was justified in executing a 16-year-old U.S. citizen simply because the kid “should have [had] a far more responsible father.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/robert-gibbs-anwar-al-awlaki_n_2012438.html) According to the Justice Department white paper, those killings are all now perfectly legal because supposedly the law “does not require the United States to have clear evidence” in order to kill anyone, much less posthumously identify them as a threat.

In the context of the administration’s other high-profile legal moves, this is nothing short of a tectonic shift in long-term jurisprudential standards. When it comes to Obama campaign contributors on Wall Street, Too Big to Jail means no amount of overwhelming evidence can prompt a single white-collar prosecution, regardless of the scope of financial terrorism. Meanwhile, when it comes to any U.S. citizen the president unilaterally deems a terrorist, Too Big to Curtail means that not a single shred of actual evidence is needed not just to prosecute him, but to outright execute him.

Should the Congress continue to do nothing about this shift — say, for instance, by confirming the CIA nomination of one of the architects of Too Big to Curtail, John Brennan — this double standard will be the new assumed normal, one that (heads up, liberal Obama defenders!) will be exploited by Democratic and Republican presidents alike. As evidenced by its statements to the Times (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/26/obama-drones-kill-list-framework), the Obama administration clearly knows that to be the case — and is now doing its best to guarantee that its radical precedents are cemented for the long haul.


http://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/who_cant_be_on_obamas_kill_list/singleton/

[ChumpDumper]

Maybe. I would think this kind of administrative spin is the kind of thing every president from now on would want to avoid. Who wants to be known as the Prez that codified assassination?May have already been done tbh. Assassinations have been more the rule than the exception for the last century +.

[TDMVPDPOY]

if ur white, this doesnt concern you guys at all....

i see what they are trying to do here...any legal reasons to get rid of minorities...

[Blake]

Actually, both.:toast

4th I get the frog hot water.

5th, I have issue with us feeling entitlement to rights more than others just because we were born on American dirt.

[SA210]

The Obama administration’s internal legal justification for assassinating U.S. citizens without charge has been revealed for the first time. In a secret Justice Department memo, the administration claims it has legal authority to assassinate U.S. citizens overseas even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the United States. We’re joined by Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "If you look at the memo ... there’s no geographic line," says Jaffer. "The Obama administration is making, in some ways, a greater claim of authority [than President Bush]. They’re arguing that the authority to kill American citizens has no geographic limit."

Democracy Now: Kill List Exposed: Leaked Obama Memo Shows Assassination of U.S. Citizens "Has No Geographic Limit"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwNsXC6OWKE





Ouch...scorching article from Salon.com

Too big to Curtail

Who can’t be on Obama’s “kill list”? (http://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/who_cant_be_on_obamas_kill_list/)

A DOJ white paper reveals White House rationalization for drone strikes -- and an out of control power structure

By David Sirota (http://www.salon.com/writer/david_sirota/)

Last month, America saw in graphic detail how the destructive notion of Too Big to Jail (http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/are_banks_too_big_to_jail/) means for an executive branch that refuses to prosecute a single banker connected to the financial meltdown. Today, with the release (http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite) of a secret Justice Department white paper about the president’s so-called kill list, we are learning about another radical jurisprudential notion being pioneered by the Obama administration. Call it Too Big to Curtail.

That’s the most accurate label to describe the machinery of the government’s ever-expanding drone war. As the white paper asserts, that war — which is likely creating more terrorists than it is neutralizing (http://www.salon.com/2013/01/25/actually_obama_does_advocate_perpetual_war/) — cannot be curtailed by laws or the Constitution. Therefore, the argument goes, the president no longer merely claims the power to detain and torture people without due process, nor does he merely claim the power to execute American citizens without indictment or trial. Those extra-constitutional powers, which only a few years ago were seen as utterly illegal, are quaint compared to the new assertion that the president can now do all of this without any concrete intelligence suggesting a citizen is linked to terrorist activity.

This is the most harrowing takeaway from the white paper, which was released as a bipartisan group of senators belatedly demands (http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/02/senators-ask-obama-for-legal-opinions-oking-drone-156084.html) answers about the drone war. As NBC News reports (emphasis added):
It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.
The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.




This new claim that evidence is not required to kill someone is the true foundation of Too Big to Curtail. To really appreciate how extreme the whole concept is, understand that it is already blatantly illegal for a president to execute an American citizen without so much as a indictment. Indeed, if the constitutional notion of “due process” means anything at all, at minimum it means at least being formally charged with a single crime.

But in the new white paper, the Obama administration isn’t just laying waste to that most basic of ideas — it is going further and insisting that even within the extra-constitutional “kill list” deliberations inside the White House, the president doesn’t actually need evidence to order someone’s death.

This, of course, creates a legal architecture to justify the administration’s heretofore shocking declaration that, according to the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), “it in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants.” It also explains why Obama’s spokesman said the president was justified in executing a 16-year-old U.S. citizen simply because the kid “should have [had] a far more responsible father.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/robert-gibbs-anwar-al-awlaki_n_2012438.html) According to the Justice Department white paper, those killings are all now perfectly legal because supposedly the law “does not require the United States to have clear evidence” in order to kill anyone, much less posthumously identify them as a threat.

In the context of the administration’s other high-profile legal moves, this is nothing short of a tectonic shift in long-term jurisprudential standards. When it comes to Obama campaign contributors on Wall Street, Too Big to Jail means no amount of overwhelming evidence can prompt a single white-collar prosecution, regardless of the scope of financial terrorism. Meanwhile, when it comes to any U.S. citizen the president unilaterally deems a terrorist, Too Big to Curtail means that not a single shred of actual evidence is needed not just to prosecute him, but to outright execute him.

Should the Congress continue to do nothing about this shift — say, for instance, by confirming the CIA nomination of one of the architects of Too Big to Curtail, John Brennan — this double standard will be the new assumed normal, one that (heads up, liberal Obama defenders!) will be exploited by Democratic and Republican presidents alike. As evidenced by its statements to the Times (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/26/obama-drones-kill-list-framework), the Obama administration clearly knows that to be the case — and is now doing its best to guarantee that its radical precedents are cemented for the long haul.


http://www.salon.com/2013/02/05/who_cant_be_on_obamas_kill_list/singleton/

[TeyshaBlue]

4th I get the frog hot water.

5th, I have issue with us feeling entitlement to rights more than others just because we were born on American dirt.

I see your argument, but it is an American document.

[vy65]

Unless they are going to call a drone strike on me, I'm having trouble giving a shit.


Sorry, I'm having trouble getting fired up over it too. Is there any particular reason why we as a whole should be upset?

Were you guys also upset that Bin Laden didn't get a fair trial?

This. And I can't believe I'm agreeing with the cuck, but srsly, who gives a fuck?

[vy65]

I see your argument, but it is an American document.

Here's question: Do you think you can "waive" your constitutional rights by allying with a terrorist organization?

Question's not directly responsive to this thread, but it has some relevance.

[TeyshaBlue]

Here's question: Do you think you can "waive" your constitutional rights by allying with a terrorist organization?

Question's not directly responsive to this thread, but it has some relevance.

I don't see any mechanism that accomplishes this, so no.

[SA210]

Here's question: Do you think you can "waive" your constitutional rights by allying with a terrorist organization?



With no clear proof?

[vy65]

I don't see any mechanism that accomplishes this, so no.

Formal mechanism? Absolutely not. But I'd argue by analogy to waiver of constitutional rights to counsel when a suspect talks to the police.

This is a novel "war." Constitutional law from 200+ years ago can't deal with the problems engendered by the WOT. The law is gonna go through some severe changes to be able to deal with modern day reality.

[vy65]

With no clear proof?

Was there an absence of clear proof re Al-Awlaki?

[vy65]

And what evidentiary standard is clear proof?

[TeyshaBlue]

Formal mechanism? Absolutely not. But I'd argue by analogy to waiver of constitutional rights to counsel when a suspect talks to the police.

This is a novel "war." Constitutional law from 200+ years ago can't deal with the problems engendered by the WOT. The law is gonna go through some severe changes to be able to deal with modern day reality.

That's a fair point, vy, but it sorta hinges upon duress, no?

[SA210]

Was there an absence of clear proof re Al-Awlaki?

Well, even the White House refuses to answer that question or provide any proof. They can say what they want about him, but they wont release any proof.

Credit to Jake Tapper for pressing this fact.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6bgwZGZiIo


I think an even more important question is, what did his 16 year old American son from Colorado do to warrant being targeted 2 weeks later and killed? "He should have had a more responsible father", apparently is the answer given for the taking of his American life without charge or trial.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pOUFHTN1G4

This is big, it's truly criminal, it's truly murder.

[vy65]

That's a fair point, vy, but it sorta hinges upon duress, no?

I'm not sure. It's been a while since I've looked at that particularly question, but from what I remember, the waiver has to be voluntary and/or intelligent to be effective - so if the waiver is given under duress - it probably wouldn't be effective.

I was just suggesting that because there is waiver of of constitutional rights in other contexts, the concept might apply here as well.

[vy65]

the refusal to provide evidence =|= the absence of evidence

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm not sure. It's been a while since I've looked at that particularly question, but from what I remember, the waiver has to be voluntary and/or intelligent to be effective - so if the waiver is given under duress - it probably wouldn't be effective.

I was just suggesting that because there is waiver of of constitutional rights in other contexts, the concept might apply here as well.

I really cant argue the point....I'm just not up to speed on the legality. Kinda going with my gut instinct here. Usually not a great idea.:lol

[SA210]

Not to mention he wasn't in a "war" or "combat" zone nor an immediate threat against America at the time of his killing, he could have been detained and charged.

[vy65]

I really cant argue the point....I'm just not up to speed on the legality. Kinda going with my gut instinct here. Usually not a great idea.:lol

Is this the time when I'm supposed to say GFY or something? Or did I miss that already?

[vy65]

Not to mention he wasn't in a "war" or "combat" zone nor an immediate threat against America at the time of his killing, he could have been detained and charged.

I'm suggesting that the concepts of war and combat zone have changed and the law has to catch up.

How could he have been detained and charged? One of the three elements in the white paper is impossibility of detainment.

[TeyshaBlue]

Is this the time when I'm supposed to say GFY or something? Or did I miss that already?

Close enough.:lol

[Blake]

I see your argument, but it is an American document.

which opens itself up for us to practice elitism over the other human beings that occupy planet earth.

[SA210]

I'm suggesting that the concepts of war and combat zone have changed and the law has to catch up.

How could he have been detained and charged? One of the three elements in the white paper is impossibility of detainment.

I would have to respectfully disagree with that notion. It's very dangerous for Presidents, Dem or Repub to have the power to think they can declare any land they want as a war zone, without actually declaring war. We are creating MORE terrorists with that type of policy, which is exactly the type of policies Obama promised to end when running for office.

I believe an American needs to be charged and proof presented. They still refuse to show such proof. And the issue of his 16 year old American son is even worse, they never even accused him of any crime. They simply just targeted and killed him two weeks later, and said he should have had a more responsible father.

Now there is really nothing that can excuse that. That act alone, Obama should be arrested, charged, and put on trial, something he refuses to give some Americans.

[vy65]

That's all fine and dandy except you haven't really addressed the point: has the practice of warfare changed from lobsters walking around with muskets?

I never said that a president should be able to unilaterally declare any region of the world to be a war zone. My point is only that the times are a changing, and that clinging to a 200 year old document doesn't make sense. The task is to develop new procedural safeguards to check new legal innovations, not cling to antiquated ones.

Also, I'm still waiting on "clear proof" (again, whatever that means) that al-awlaki, or any of the other targeted "Americans" could be detained and charged as per the white paper's recommendation.

[SA210]

That's all fine and dandy except you haven't really addressed the point: has the practice of warfare changed from lobsters walking around with muskets?

I never said that a president should be able to unilaterally declare any region of the world to be a war zone. My point is only that the times are a changing, and that clinging to a 200 year old document doesn't make sense. The task is to develop new procedural safeguards to check new legal innovations, not cling to antiquated ones.

Also, I'm still waiting on "clear proof" (again, whatever that means) that al-awlaki, or any of the other targeted "Americans" could be detained and charged as per the white paper's recommendation.


I understand you didn't say that, but my point is that this president has been pretty secretive and has really abused his power in expansion of wars. It's very easy now for him and his staff to claim anything a war zone (even though the wars are illegal to begin with) as justification for anything he wants to do, and to say things like "Al Qaeda" over and over again, and to say the priority is to "Save American lives" as a cover to deflect actually having to fully and honestly answer the questions of what legal authority and what proof they have. We all care about preventing "terrorists" from taking "American lives", but it's very clear they can't be trusted by simply just telling us that people are doing something wrong, and it is scary thinking that these powers will be adopted under other presidents. How far will they go with such unchecked power?

If they have been secretive about so many things, and clearly have lied about things, why should we trust them if they say they couldn't detain them? Again, they never accused the 16 year old of a crime. Drones may be a good tool for when it's truly needed under a real declared war against a true enemy. But these are strikes in countries where we have peace treaties with. We are the ones creating terrorists. We are killing 50 civilians for every "terrorist" we target, and they still don't have proof many times that that so called "terrorist" was actually a terrorist to begin with. Jeremy Scahill I think touched on that subject. You ask what clear proof means, but they won't show us ANY proof. Why? And why was his son killed? Where is the accusation that he did anything wrong?

[SA210]

Sean Hannity and the Republicans are really pounding Obama now on this and how he criticized Bush on torturing 3 people but yet just flat out murders Americans.

License to torture versus license to murder.

They could have won the election if they made a stink on this issue during the election. But, they were too busy supporting it. However, any attention and spotlight given to this issue is good.

[Blake]

$5 vy gets put on SA210's vaunted ignore list

[ChumpDumper]

Sean Hannity and the Republicans are really pounding Obama now on this and how he criticized Bush on torturing 3 people but yet just flat out murders Americans.

License to torture versus license to murder.

They could have won the election if they made a stink on this issue during the election. But, they were too busy supporting it. However, any attention and spotlight given to this issue is good.:lol Hannity

Romney would have done no different.

And nobody made a stink about it during the election because:

1) The candidates agreed on this policy.

2) The general public didn't give a shit.

[SA210]

Holy crap, Cenk Uygur is tearing Obama to pieces on TYT Live right now, point by point.

[Clipper Nation]

Unless they are going to call a drone strike on me, I'm having trouble giving a shit.

Tbh, it's a pretty abusive use of executive power, it's probably worth giving a shit about even though the chances of it affecting the average joe are slim to none....

[Th'Pusher]

:lol Hannity

Romney would have done no different.

And nobody made a stink about it during the election because:

1) The candidates agreed on this policy.

2) The general public didn't give a shit.
You might want to switch over to msnbc. The left is hammering him too. Ed Shultz is working on a stroke. In reality, that doesn't really matter though. Just talking heads. 11 senators (bipartisan) sent a letter to Obama asking for justification. That's about all you're gonna get.

[Th'Pusher]

^ meant to quote sa210

[SA210]

You might want to switch over to msnbc. The left is hammering him too. Ed Shultz is working on a stroke. In reality, that doesn't really matter though. Just talking heads. 11 senators (bipartisan) sent a letter to Obama asking for justification. That's about all you're gonna get.

Damn I missed Ed Scultz. I usually don't watch mainstream media because they ignore these issues and are filled with trash topics. But right now this is gaining a little steam. And yup, you are correct, talking heads. Republicans are using it to simply attack Obama rather than actually caring about the issue, they supported these policies but now pretending to care lol. I saw sorry kiss ass Chris Matthews do his brown nosing job of trying to pretend like he covered the story, pretending to be concerned but in the end still defending Obama.

But I still say, any attention on this issue right now is good attention.

[Th'Pusher]

Damn I missed Ed Scultz. I usually don't watch mainstream media because they ignore these issues and are filled with trash topics. But right now this is gaining a little steam. And yup, you are correct, talking heads. Republicans are using it to simply attack Obama rather than actually caring about the issue, they supported these policies but now pretending to care lol. I saw sorry kiss ass Chris Matthews do his brown nosing job of trying to pretend like he covered the story, pretending to be concerned but in the end still defending Obama.

But I still say, any attention on this issue right now is good attention.
I think your meme avalanche on spurstalk was the catalyst for the leaked white paper tbh.

[Blake]

I think your meme avalanche on spurstalk was the catalyst for the leaked white paper tbh.

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/obama-wins-reelection-memes.jpg

[ElNono]

My issue is lack of oversight, including on the legal construction. I thought Yoo was full of shit back in the day for the same exact reasons.

If the administration wants to make the argument to the SCOTUS that such power is warranted and constitutional, they should do so, instead of calling everything a secret and non-reviewable.

And personally, I do give a fuck. Having some arbitrary 'high position, informed' government official dictating who gets his constitutional rights or not doesn't sound appealing to me.

[ElNono]

Formal mechanism? Absolutely not. But I'd argue by analogy to waiver of constitutional rights to counsel when a suspect talks to the police.

This is a novel "war." Constitutional law from 200+ years ago can't deal with the problems engendered by the WOT. The law is gonna go through some severe changes to be able to deal with modern day reality.

My beef is that the determination of who 'waived' or not his constitutional rights is up to some third party that suddenly gets to decide that.

[ChumpDumper]

My issue is lack of oversight, including on the legal construction. I thought Yoo was full of shit back in the day for the same exact reasons.

If the administration wants to make the argument to the SCOTUS that such power is warranted and constitutional, they should do so, instead of calling everything a secret and non-reviewable.

And personally, I do give a fuck. Having some arbitrary 'high position, informed' government official dictating who gets his constitutional rights or not doesn't sound appealing to me.I agree with all that in principle, but nothing is going to change as long as the war on terra is in full swing. Governments always do fucked up stuff during war, and no one in government has really pushed back against the imperial presidency since Watergate tbh.

[Blake]

My beef is that the determination of who 'waived' or not his constitutional rights is up to some third party that suddenly gets to decide that.

not sure how you can separate people out at this point.

either we stop killing Al Qaeda leaders altogether or wipe them all out.

[vy65]

I understand you didn't say that, but my point is that this president has been pretty secretive and has really abused his power in expansion of wars. It's very easy now for him and his staff to claim anything a war zone (even though the wars are illegal to begin with) as justification for anything he wants to do, and to say things like "Al Qaeda" over and over again, and to say the priority is to "Save American lives" as a cover to deflect actually having to fully and honestly answer the questions of what legal authority and what proof they have. We all care about preventing "terrorists" from taking "American lives", but it's very clear they can't be trusted by simply just telling us that people are doing something wrong, and it is scary thinking that these powers will be adopted under other presidents. How far will they go with such unchecked power?

Let's see if I can't get on the ignore list.

Why can the President say anywhere is a warzone? Do you think he can declare that Omaha is a warzone? What about Manhattan? Why is there anything preventing him from declaring any domestic location is a warzone? Why hasn't he done so already?

Are there no good reasons for secrecy? Should the president be an open-book regarding every facet of his war powers? Do you think that doing so would help or hurt national security?

I'm not saying that everything is hunky dory. But you have no conception of the checks on the president's war making authority. Look at all the GITMO cases as an example.


If they have been secretive about so many things, and clearly have lied about things, why should we trust them if they say they couldn't detain them? Again, they never accused the 16 year old of a crime. Drones may be a good tool for when it's truly needed under a real declared war against a true enemy. But these are strikes in countries where we have peace treaties with. We are the ones creating terrorists. We are killing 50 civilians for every "terrorist" we target, and they still don't have proof many times that that so called "terrorist" was actually a terrorist to begin with. Jeremy Scahill I think touched on that subject. You ask what clear proof means, but they won't show us ANY proof. Why? And why was his son killed? Where is the accusation that he did anything wrong?

Do you have any proof of these other things the president has been secretive of? Do you have any reason for distrust other than blind faith that the "government is hiding shit?"

Do you understand the difference between facts/evidence and the procedure of instigating criminal accusations?

Who are these 50 civilians being killed a day? Are they on US soil? If they're overseas, what are they doing there? Are you claiming that the US has instituted a policy of drone strikes on US tourists to the Eiffel Tower?

For the third time -- what's clear proof? Is is clear and convincing proof? Is it proof that shows terrorist participation beyond a reasonable doubt? What is it?

And finally, this is all wholly irrelevant to my point which is: war has changed, and the law needs to as well. Clinging to the fantasy that a 200 year old document is relevant to this topic today is beyond stupid. Instead of hashing out tired old talking points, why not think about new procedural safeguards to protect these supposed egregious constitutional violations.

[vy65]

My beef is that the determination of who 'waived' or not his constitutional rights is up to some third party that suddenly gets to decide that.

But that's how waiver is adjudicated in every context. In court, the judge (3rd party) determines waiver.

But I think you're point is that there is no third party review of waiver here because the President (in the court example, a party) gets to determine the terrorist (the other party) "waived" his constitutional rights. There's no impartiality.

So, what if there was a special tribunal created to review these executive decisions. The tribunal's proceedings would be expedited and totally secret -- but there would be some semblance of judicial review. Problem then?

[Th'Pusher]

I gotta say, once this white paper was leaked, the msm was pretty much on top of it. Obviously left and right outlets had rationale to cover the story, but all major media outlets were all over this.

[Th'Pusher]

But that's how waiver is adjudicated in every context. In court, the judge (3rd party) determines waiver.

But I think you're point is that there is no third party review of waiver here because the President (in the court example, a party) gets to determine the terrorist (the other party) "waived" his constitutional rights. There's no impartiality.

So, what if there was a special tribunal created to review these executive decisions. The tribunal's proceedings would be expedited and totally secret -- but there would be some semblance of judicial review. Problem then?
Yep. You're getting at the crux of the problem, which is a lack of transparency and oversight. IMO there is no reason this white paper needed to be leaked. It should have been released by the administration. It was not classified.

[ElNono]

I agree with all that in principle, but nothing is going to change as long as the war on terra is in full swing. Governments always do fucked up stuff during war, and no one in government has really pushed back against the imperial presidency since Watergate tbh.

I would agree that unless this becomes some sort of popular political negative (like when the illegal domestic spying came to light), nothing is going to be done.

But I'd still like to register my dislike for power grabs like this one, especially those without oversight. Even more so when they directly affect American citizens and the constitutional rights granted to them.

It's a sad day in America when citizens are cheated of their rights like this. Or should be, IMO.


not sure how you can separate people out at this point.

either we stop killing Al Qaeda leaders altogether or wipe them all out.

You can allow for after-the-fact oversight. Some of that already happens with FISA. It won't bring the dead back, but if there's a fuckup, those responsible should face the music...

Again, the power granted by the constitution to analyze the constitutionality of such legal orders is the judiciary. The executive claim that their legal interpretations are not to be subject to the judiciary is, prima facie, an abuse of separation of powers, and the hijacking of a power not granted to them.

[ElNono]

But that's how waiver is adjudicated in every context. In court, the judge (3rd party) determines waiver.

But I think you're point is that there is no third party review of waiver here because the President (in the court example, a party) gets to determine the terrorist (the other party) "waived" his constitutional rights. There's no impartiality.

So, what if there was a special tribunal created to review these executive decisions. The tribunal's proceedings would be expedited and totally secret -- but there would be some semblance of judicial review. Problem then?

Not a problem, and as I pointed out, post-facto oversight would be the very least that should be happening here. There's currently no checks and balances on this power, especially on the judiciary side, which is in charge of determining what's legal or not (or under which legal basis rights are 'waived' or flat out denied to an American citizen).

[SA210]

Joe Scarborough this morning


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rAToC9tCuc

[SA210]

Seriously, if this story keeps getting hotter, look forward to a deflection "crisis" all of a sudden to hit the news or we "capture" a top "terrorist", or stop a terrorist plot in New York, or somewhere, etc to take the attention off this story.

[Th'Pusher]

Legally, is the drone program not authorized under the 2001 authorization for use of military force againt terroists? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Te rrorists

seems congress pretty much gave full authorization to the president the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups.

pretty broad language IMO. Congress granted that power and has the power to redact it, no?

[ElNono]

Legally, is the drone program not authorized under the 2001 authorization for use of military force againt terroists? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Te rrorists

seems congress pretty much gave full authorization to the president the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups.

pretty broad language IMO. Congress granted that power and has the power to redact it, no?

Congress has no authority to overrule the Constitution and, specifically, the rights granted to Americans by the Constitution, other than through a Constitutional amendment. Laws are found to be unconstitutional and unenforceable all the time.

The sticky point here is the violation of American citizens' 4th and 5th amendment rights unilaterally by the executive power.

[Th'Pusher]

Congress has no authority to overrule the Constitution and, specifically, the rights granted to Americans by the Constitution, other than through a Constitutional amendment. Laws are found to be unconstitutional and unenforceable all the time.

The sticky point here is the violation of American citizens' 4th and 5th amendment rights unilaterally by the executive power.
I understand the argument and agree in principle. I am just wondering if there is a more feasible way to limit executive powers as opposed to going through SCOTUS.

[ElNono]

I understand the argument and agree in principle. I am just wondering if there is a more feasible way to limit executive powers as opposed to going through SCOTUS.

Well, you can always amend the constitution and abolish the 4th and 5th amendment... that wouldn't involve the judiciary IIRC...

Or you could just claim everything is secret, take a dump on the constitution and the judiciary and hope it doesn't come back to hurt you in the future.

I just can't agree with option B. Especially since the SCOTUS has been oftentimes receptive of government calls under exceptional times.

[SA210]

Judge Napolitano has been consistent on this issue.



Judge Napolitano on Obama's "Kill List": 'Congress Should Do Something About It'

On today's Studio B, Judge Napolitano broke down the New York Times' release of President Obama's so-called "kill list." He expressed discomfort at Obama's newly revealed list of alleged Al Qaeda suspects, saying, "Look, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would be turning in their graves if they thought that the Constitution that they brought forth permitted the president to become a killer."

He added, "It doesn't, it's wrong, it's against our values, it's unlawful and it's unconstitutional. Congress should do something about it!"

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/05/29/judge-napolitano-on-obamas-kill-list-con... (http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/05/29/judge-napolitano-on-obamas-kill-list-congress-should-do-something-about-it/)

"Obama Can Kill Americans, Without Evidence, Inside the U.S."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48BdIJ6Oaec

[Winehole23]

Was there an absence of clear proof re Al-Awlaki?begging the question. was there?

[Winehole23]

show your work, 'ese.

[Winehole23]

I understand the argument and agree in principle. I am just wondering if there is a more feasible way to limit executive powers as opposed to going through SCOTUS.Madison v Marbury. Supreme Court gets to say what the law means. Or Congress can pass a law making it illegal. But maybe we're way past that now. . .

[Winehole23]

I would agree that unless this becomes some sort of popular political negative (like when the illegal domestic spying came to light), nothing is going to be done.

But I'd still like to register my dislike for power grabs like this one, especially those without oversight. Even more so when they directly affect American citizens and the constitutional rights granted to them.

It's a sad day in America when citizens are cheated of their rights like this. Or should be, IMO.right on, bro. this sucks.




You can allow for after-the-fact oversight. Some of that already happens with FISA. It won't bring the dead back, but if there's a fuckup, those responsible should face the music...memo appears to rule this out.


Again, the power granted by the constitution to analyze the constitutionality of such legal orders is the judiciary. The executive claim that their legal interpretations are not to be subject to the judiciary is, prima facie, an abuse of separation of powers, and the hijacking of a power not granted to them.agreed 100%

[Winehole23]

But that's how waiver is adjudicated in every context. In court, the judge (3rd party) determines waiver.

But I think you're point is that there is no third party review of waiver here because the President (in the court example, a party) gets to determine the terrorist (the other party) "waived" his constitutional rights. There's no impartiality.

So, what if there was a special tribunal created to review these executive decisions. The tribunal's proceedings would be expedited and totally secret -- but there would be some semblance of judicial review. Problem then?absolutely yes. you trust the star chamber?

[Winehole23]

do you give bona fides to a secret body, appointed by the executive, with secret, unreviewable proceedings determining life or death for US citizens extrajudicially?

if so, why?

[Winehole23]

I agree with all that in principle, but nothing is going to change as long as the war on terra is in full swing. Governments always do fucked up stuff during war, and no one in government has really pushed back against the imperial presidency since Watergate tbh.are we at war? with whom, please?

[Winehole23]

Be specific if you can. Al Qaeda is essentially defunct, so you'll have to do better than that.

[boutons_deux]

Be specific if you can. Al Qaeda is essentially defunct, so you'll have to do better than that.

defunct? Supposedly it was AQ who was taking over Mali, with weapons from Qaddafi's looted arsenal in Libya, which is apparently sourcing AQ all over the M/E, like in Syria.

Certainly, the GWOT against AQ, no matter how "defunct" you or the MIC says it is, is the justification for the planet-wide assassinations, drone or Special Ops.

[SA210]

If supporting Al Qaeda warrants a drone strike, doesn't that mean our own government should drone strike themselves for aiding Al Qaeda in Syria? Or does it render the white paper moot?

[George Gervin's Afro]

If an American is somewhere in the world plotting to kill other Americans ,and we can't get to him before he does something, then I don't see a problem with this.

I don't want my son to be killed by a drone strike on our front lawn because of a crime he might have committed...

yet if he chose to hang out with known terrorists plotting to kill Americans in a cave somewhere I couldn't blame the govt... if they thought the only way to stop the bad guys was to hit the cave.... I don't see that as unreasonable...

[George Gervin's Afro]

Seriously, as long as this country remains on a quasi war footing, things like this are going to be produced. No executive after Bush will want to be the one who didn't try everything possible to stop another terra attack on the US, and no congress will want to be the one who stood in the executive's way.

kind of the way I feel chump

[leemajors]

If an American is somewhere in the world plotting to kill other Americans ,and we can't get to him before he does something, then I don't see a problem with this.

I don't want my son to be killed by a drone strike on our front lawn because of a crime he might have committed...

yet if he chose to hang out with known terrorists plotting to kill Americans in a cave somewhere I couldn't blame the govt... if they thought the only way to stop the bad guys was to hit the cave.... I don't see that as unreasonable...

you don't need excessively vague wording in that case.

[SA210]

If supporting Al Qaeda warrants a drone strike, doesn't that mean our own government should drone strike themselves for aiding Al Qaeda in Syria?

[George Gervin's Afro]

If supporting Al Qaeda warrants a drone strike, doesn't that mean our own government should drone strike themselves for aiding Al Qaeda in Syria? Or does it render the white paper moot?

SA you seem like a bright guy and consistent with your points of view across the political spectrum.. I respect that.. but high level targets on foreign soil are fair game..

[George Gervin's Afro]

you don't need excessively vague wording in that case.

so how can document every situation imaginable to include? I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying rather I find a vaugely worded somewhat acceptable in this case...(holding my nose)...

[SA210]

SA you seem like a bright guy and consistent with your points of view across the political spectrum.. I respect that.. but high level targets on foreign soil are fair game..


But what does the 16 year old American boy have to do with being a high level target, or a suspect of imminent threat? And you feel comfortable with them saying they don't even need clear proof and no oversight whatsoever?

[boutons_deux]

"we can't get to him before he does something, then I don't see a problem with this."

An informant records AMERICAN CITIZEN gang member(s) plotting to kill other AMERICAN CITIZEN gang members or snitches or any AMERICAN CITIZEN, all within the USA. Why don't the FBI, police just kill the plotters?

[SA210]

.
.
.
Very critical news coverage last night by Cenk Uyger on The Young Turks.

Cenk goes pretty hard on this one picking the Administration off point by point on their memo and their comments, etc .

Here are the series of the segments they ran last night.


American citizens were executed abroad in targeted drone strikes, and now, a leaked Justice Department memo outlines how the U.S. government could order drones strikes on them and others for no clear reason. Cenk Uygur breaks down the egregious abuse of power by the Obama administration.

TYT: Govt. Has The Right to Kill American Citizens?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjqZJveJb2Q



"White House reporters tried in vain to get information from press secretary Jay Carney about a newly released paper that deals with the Obama administration's killing of American citizens.

The paper, which was obtained by NBC News, lays out some of the government's justification for the assassination of Americans with drone strikes. The memo says that the US can order the killing of Americans if they are believed to be senior Al Qaeda members, even if they are not actively plotting attacks."*


White House Press Secretary Jay Carney responded to the "white paper memo" on the Obama administration's killing of American citizens with drone strikes. Well, actually he didn't- but according to him, the president was very, very serious when thinking the strikes over. Cenk Uygur breaks it down.

TYT: Deadly Drone Strikes - Obama is 'Serious'


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbgyVHPuEAI


I figured to include this last one because Brennan is Obama's Drone warrior in crime and will be having his confirmation hearing Thursday.



"John Brennan, President Barack Obama's nominee to head the CIA, had detailed, contemporaneous knowledge of the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" on captured terrorism suspects during an earlier stint as a top spy agency official, according to multiple sources familiar with official records."*

There's evidence that CIA Director nominee John Brennan had extensive knowledge of torture programs. Sure he allegedly "had reservations," but he didn't do anything about it.
Cenk Uygur breaks it down.


TYT: Obama CIA Nom Approves Torture?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VZdCPyWMbA

[leemajors]

so how can document every situation imaginable to include? I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying rather I find a vaugely worded somewhat acceptable in this case...(holding my nose)...

My issue was with what can easily be construed as intentionally vague language. I have no answers.

[Blake]

"we can't get to him before he does something, then I don't see a problem with this."

An informant records AMERICAN CITIZEN gang member(s) plotting to kill other AMERICAN CITIZEN gang members or snitches or any AMERICAN CITIZEN, all within the USA. Why don't the FBI, police just kill the plotters?




why are we separating American humans from other humans?

news: ”more pakistanis died today in drone attack”

America: ”meh.”

News: ”American citizen that was probably an Al Qaeda leader died today in drone attack in Pakistan”

America: ”OMGWTFBBQ! This is absurd! Outrageous even!

If we put up with this, the slippery slope, frog in hot water will be complete desecration of the holy Constitution followed by drone attacks in my neighborhood!”

[vy65]

do you give bona fides to a secret body, appointed by the executive, with secret, unreviewable proceedings determining life or death for US citizens extrajudicially?

if so, why?


absolutely yes. you trust the star chamber?

You're putting a lot of words in my mouth. I never suggested using an Article II court. My preference would be for Article III review, but I could also deal with Article I.

As for your other point, it begs the question of what you mean by bona fides: good faith or competency (or both). The constitutional structure of Article III review rests upon the premise of good faith (hence, lifetime appointments). The congressional outcry over executive warpowers also suggests strong scrutiny and hence good faith. And competency can be developed.

[ChumpDumper]

But what does the 16 year old American boy have to do with being a high level target, or a suspect of imminent threat? And you feel comfortable with them saying they don't even need clear proof and no oversight whatsoever?Yeah, we shot a bunch of other people when we assassinated bin Laden. Don't feel bad about that at all.

[ElNono]

If an American is somewhere in the world plotting to kill other Americans ,and we can't get to him before he does something, then I don't see a problem with this.

I don't want my son to be killed by a drone strike on our front lawn because of a crime he might have committed...

yet if he chose to hang out with known terrorists plotting to kill Americans in a cave somewhere I couldn't blame the govt... if they thought the only way to stop the bad guys was to hit the cave.... I don't see that as unreasonable...

What if he isn't plotting shit but some allegedly 'informed, high ranking' govt official says he is? tough luck? there's a reason we have a due process clause in the constitution. We have the right to challenge our accusers.

[boutons_deux]

why are we separating American humans from other humans?

news: ”more pakistanis died today in drone attack”

America: ”meh.”

News: ”American citizen that was probably an Al Qaeda leader died today in drone attack in Pakistan”

America: ”OMGWTFBBQ! This is absurd! Outrageous even!

If we put up with this, the slippery slope, frog in hot water will be complete desecration of the holy Constitution followed by drone attacks in my neighborhood!”

yes, common, popular understanding of the Constitutional rights is that they apply only to American citizens, are "alieanable" for non-American-citizens. iow, Constitutional rights are not HUMAN rights, but only American citizen rights.

Americans truly believe America as a country and Americans as people are exceptional, superior, chosen/preferred by (some) God (of their own choosing).

iow, Americans are The Chosen People, and all other humans can suck hind tit.

We are already well down the slippery slope of a unaccountable, unchallenge-able police state. Observe the OWS American citizens who DARED challenge the financial sector, or non-American Assange, who are to be crushed by that state.

[Winehole23]

You're putting a lot of words in my mouth. I never suggested using an Article II court. My preference would be for Article III review, but I could also deal with Article I.

As for your other point, it begs the question of what you mean by bona fides: good faith or competency (or both). The constitutional structure of Article III review rests upon the premise of good faith (hence, lifetime appointments). The congressional outcry over executive warpowers also suggests strong scrutiny and hence good faith. And competency can be developed.to sum up, then, you're cool with the President having a secret, due process free assassination power, so long as another branch can review it?

[Winehole23]

The definition of an extreme authoritarian is one who is willing blindly to assume that government accusations are true without any evidence presented or opportunity to contest those accusations. This memo - and the entire theory justifying Obama's kill list - centrally relies on this authoritarian conflation of government accusations and valid proof of guilt.


They are not the same and never have been. Political leaders who decree guilt in secret and with no oversight inevitably succumb to error and/or abuse of power. Such unchecked accusatory decrees are inherently untrustworthy (indeed, Yemen experts (https://twitter.com/gregorydjohnsen/status/75837444557258752) have vehemently contested (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/20/opinion/20johnsen.html) the claim that Awlaki himself was a senior al-Qaida leader posing an imminent threat (https://twitter.com/gregorydjohnsen/status/75838992544841729) to the US). That's why due process is guaranteed in the Constitution and why judicial review of government accusations has been a staple of western justice since the Magna Carta: because leaders can't be trusted to decree guilt and punish citizens without evidence and an adversarial process. That is the age-old basic right on which this memo, and the Obama presidency, is waging war.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/05/obama-kill-list-doj-memo

[Winehole23]

The most vital fact to note about this memorandum is that it is not purporting to impose requirements on the president's power to assassinate US citizens. When it concludes that the president has the authority to assassinate "a Senior Operational Leader of al-Qaida" who "poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the US" where capture is "infeasible", it is not concluding that assassinations are permissible only in those circumstances.

To the contrary, the memo expressly makes clear that presidential assassinations may be permitted even when none of those circumstances prevail: "This paper does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful." Instead, as the last line of the memo states: "it concludes only that the stated conditions would be sufficient to make lawful a lethal operation" - not that such conditions are necessary to find these assassinations legal. The memo explicitly leaves open the possibility that presidential assassinations of US citizens may be permissible even when the target is not a senior al-Qaida leader posing an imminent threat and/or when capture is feasible.same

[vy65]

to sum up, then, you're cool with the President having a secret, due process free assassination power, so long as another branch can review it?

incorrect

The exercise of review is a check on "due process free assassination power." Your assertion is oxymoronic.

[Winehole23]

My preference would be for Article III review, but I could also deal with Article I.what was the intended meaning here?

[vy65]

Article III review references a judicial appointment within the purview of Article III of the Constitution; it's a shorthand for saying lifetime appointed justices who are (supposedly) above the political fray and are neutral/impartial judges.

Article I refers to congressionaly appointed review bodies who, while beyond the power of the President's political whims, may be impartial to their congressional masters.

[Winehole23]

incorrect

The exercise of review is a check on "due process free assassination power." such a review falls well short of constitutionally guaranteed due process.

[Winehole23]

Article III review references a judicial appointment within the purview of Article III of the Constitution; it's a shorthand for saying lifetime appointed justices who are (supposedly) above the political fray and are neutral/impartial judges.

Article I refers to congressionaly appointed review bodies who, while beyond the power of the President's political whims, may be impartial to their congressional masters.what's the point of bringing them up in this context?

[Winehole23]

if some judicial or or legislative authority were to review the secret assassination of Americans, that would be somehow preferable to the President arrogating the power to violate our due process rights all by himself?

[George Gervin's Afro]

What if he isn't plotting shit but some allegedly 'informed, high ranking' govt official says he is? tough luck? there's a reason we have a due process clause in the constitution. We have the right to challenge our accusers.

That happens already happens.. we have already killed American born terrorists in battle without taking them to court ... what happens in a firefight? Are our GIs supposed to not shoot the American born combatants that are shooting at them.. If I go to a country and hang out with people who want to kill Americans and know that being in their presence makes me a target as well... and I choose to stay? Does that mean you wouldn't want the govt to send in a drone for the fear that you might harm me and my rights?

[George Gervin's Afro]

if some judicial or or legislative authority were to review the secret assassination of Americans, that would be somehow preferable to the President arrogating the power to violate our due process rights all by himself?

Yes. Of course if there is no proof that there was any wrong doing then the person who ordered the strike should be charged with murder..

[Winehole23]

putting US citizens beyond the protection of the law on the President's say so, with or without the concurrence of the legislature or the judiciary, essentially revives outlawry.

if one doesn't object to the depriving of life without due process of law, it's hard to see what assertion of power would be objectionable.

[vy65]

what's the point of bringing them up in this context?

Impartiality/third party observation of criminal-procedure determinations/check on rights violations.

[vy65]

if some judicial or or legislative authority were to review the secret assassination of Americans, that would be somehow preferable to the President arrogating the power to violate our due process rights all by himself?

Sure. Why wouldn't it?

[Winehole23]

once we decided that indefinite detention (i.e., depriving people of liberty without due process) was ok, getting here was a small step. expedience trumps all, I guess.

[Winehole23]

Sure. Why wouldn't it?it's still an unconsitutional deprivation of rights; asking a court of justice or any other constitutional officer to ratify such proceedings is a perversion of justice and the US Constitution.

[vy65]

it's still an unconsitutional deprivation of rights; asking a court of justice or any other constitutional officer to ratify such proceedings is a perversion of justice and constitutionality.

again with the words in the mouth -- I never said have an A3 justice bless the kill order and all is well. The idea was to provide judicial review in an expedited manner.

[ElNono]

That happens already happens.. we have already killed American born terrorists in battle without taking them to court ... what happens in a firefight? Are our GIs supposed to not shoot the American born combatants that are shooting at them.. If I go to a country and hang out with people who want to kill Americans and know that being in their presence makes me a target as well... and I choose to stay? Does that mean you wouldn't want the govt to send in a drone for the fear that you might harm me and my rights?

Even if you're, say, an American journalist?

How do you, the common citizen, identify these people to avoid them? Do they have a sign on their forehead?

What if you have family in one of these countries?

It's a giant slippery slope, IMO.

[Winehole23]

again with the words in the mouth -- I never said have an A3 justice bless the kill order and all is well. The idea was to provide judicial review in an expedited manner.the present policy rules out judicial review. are you ok with that?

[vy65]

the present policy rules out judicial review. are you ok with that?

No, that's why I recommended adding it.

[Winehole23]

so then, in the scenario you describe, the president determines secretly who to kill, and so long as a judge he may have appointed thinks the evidence is good enough, the assassination can proceed?

[Winehole23]

would the defendant be apprised of the charges against him, be allowed to confront his accuser or challenge the evidence supporting the state's decision to murder him?

[Winehole23]

if not, you essentially would be asking judges to rubber stamp extra-judicial, due process free murder.

[vy65]

so then, in the scenario you describe, the president determines secretly who to kill, and so long as a judge he may have appointed thinks the evidence is good enough, the assassination can proceed?

Yes.

[vy65]

would the defendant be apprised of the charges against him, be allowed to confront his accuser or challenge the evidence supporting the state's decision to murder him?

No.

[vy65]

if not, you essentially would be asking judges to rubber stamp extra-judicial, due process free murder.

No.

[Winehole23]

an open, adversarial system of justice once set us apart. not so much, anymore.

[Winehole23]

No.where's the due process?

[Winehole23]

"Trial by jury, trial by fire, rock, paper scissors, who cares? Due process just means that there is a process that you do. The current process is apparently, first the president meets with his advisers and decides who he can kill. Then he kills them."

[Winehole23]

adding expedited judicial review doesn't make it due process. it just adds a veneer of of legal respectability to a secret process that violates people's right not to be deprived of their lives except through the normal administration of criminal justice. this isn't that.

[vy65]

where's the due process?

In the process of Article III review itself.

[vy65]

adding expedited judicial review doesn't make it due process. it just adds a veneer of of legal respectability to a secret process that violates people's right not to be deprived of their lives except through the normal administration of criminal justice. this isn't that.

Why would you assume that the judge will simply rubber stamp the kill? Why wouldn't it, in select circumstances, prevent a kill where the judge believes the evidence does not support the executive action.

This setting is limited to individuals who cannot be captured, detained, and charged under formal process.

Antiquated notions of due process aren't pragmatic anymore -- however wellfounded your qualms may be, they're similarly antiquated.

[Winehole23]

essentially, anyone the president designates as a terrorist under this policy is stripped first of his rights as a US citizen, then of his life.

this is queen of hearts stuff: sentence first, verdict afterwards.

[Winehole23]

In the process of Article III review itself.if the defendant isn't apprised of the charges in open court, isn't allowed to challenge his accusers or the evidence against him, and isn't allowed to put the question to a jury of his peers, I don't see how you can say that with a straight face.

[Winehole23]

This setting is limited to individuals who cannot be captured, detained, and charged under formal process.actually, the current policy isn't limited to that.

[vy65]

if the defendant isn't apprised of the charges in open court, isn't allowed to challenge his accusers or the evidence against him, and isn't allowed to put the question to a jury of his peers, I don't see how you can say that with a straight face.

Because there's value to an third party review of the executive decision. It affords some check on the president's ability to target individuals at will with absolutely no check.

If you have a better alternative, I'm all ears. Resting on concepts that have no relevance to the specific scenario being discussed is dissatisfying to say the least.

[vy65]

actually, the current policy isn't limited to that.

I briefly skimmed the white paper, so please correct me . . .

[Winehole23]

Why would you assume that the judge will simply rubber stamp the kill? Why wouldn't it, in select circumstances, prevent a kill where the judge believes the evidence does not support the executive action.

This setting is limited to individuals who cannot be captured, detained, and charged under formal process.

Antiquated notions of due process aren't pragmatic anymore -- however wellfounded your qualms may be, they're similarly antiquated.bullshit. inexpeditious for the state, maybe, but hardly passe'. we'd not be arguing if it was.

[Winehole23]

oh, and please pardon me for being attached to the open administration of justice, as inconvenient as it may be for force and its cheerleaders.

it's a custom of very long standing in this country and one we've been justly admired for.

[vy65]

bullshit. inexpeditious for the state, maybe, but hardly passe'. we'd not be arguing if it was.

Then we disagree. The context is so wholly foreign to anything in the constitution that it's simply not practicable.

[Winehole23]

I briefly skimmed the white paper, so please correct me . . .already posted upstream:


the memo expressly makes clear that presidential assassinations may be permitted even when none of those circumstances prevail: "This paper does not attempt to determine the minimum requirements necessary to render such an operation lawful." Instead, as the last line of the memo states: "it concludes only that the stated conditions would be sufficient to make lawful a lethal operation" - not that such conditions are necessary to find these assassinations legal. The memo explicitly leaves open the possibility that presidential assassinations of US citizens may be permissible even when the target is not a senior al-Qaida leader posing an imminent threat and/or when capture is feasible.

[vy65]

oh, and please pardon me for being attched to the open administration of justice, as inconvenient as it may be for you officers of the court.

it's a custom of very long standing in this country and one we've been justly admired for.

Save the flag clad soap box stuff for someone who cares

[vy65]

already posted upstream:

"Here, the Department of Justice concludes only that where the following three conditions are met, a U.S. operation using lethal force in a foreign country against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force would be lawful: (1) an informed, high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses a threat of violent attack against the U.S.; (2) capture is infeasible, and the U.S. continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and (3) the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with the applicable law of war principles."

Helps to read the paper and not some hack's gloss of it.

[Winehole23]

Then we disagree. The context is so wholly foreign to anything in the constitution that it's simply not practicable.if due process is passe', what's your objection to the policy? what need is there for judicial review if due process is "not practicable" in the context?

[Winehole23]

Save the flag clad soap box stuff for someone who caresI assume others are reading this.

[vy65]

if due process is passe', what's your objection to the policy? what need is there for judicial review if due process is "not practicable" in the context?

obstinately misstating what I've suggested.

Due process protections need to evolve with what is legally permissible to accomodate the exigencies of the WOT. Hence my suggestion of a "presidential review panel." It might not ground-shattering, but its a helluva lot better than clinging to outdated concepts of due process.

[Winehole23]

Helps to read the paper and not some hack's gloss of it.the paper is directly quoted. you may disagree with the gloss, but it is a straightforward one. much like the part you've high-lighted. the inconsistency of the white paper in this regard is striking.

[vy65]

the paper is directly quoted. you may disagree with the gloss, but it is a straightforward one. much like the part you've high-lighted. the inconsistency of the white paper in this regard is striking.

Read in context (my quote qualifying your quote because of the order of their appearance in the first paragraph), the gloss is incorrect.

[Winehole23]

Due process protections need to evolve with what is legally permissible to accomodate the exigencies of the WOT. Hence my suggestion of a "presidential review panel." It might not ground-shattering, but its a helluva lot better than clinging to outdated concepts of due process.problem is, due process substantively vanishes in the process.

[Winehole23]

are you familiar with a poster named mogrovejo? you and he seem to share a similar contempt for basic constitutional rights.

[vy65]

you sure know how to sweet talk a gal WH

[Winehole23]

Read in context (my quote qualifying your quote because of the order of their appearance in the first paragraph), the gloss is incorrect.the argument is moot. we'll not ever find out whose gloss is correct, because the policy will be glossed secretly by the President's appointees.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, myself. If they find a US citizen that is clearly acting with terrorists cells in another country, I'm OK with them taking them out in the same manner they do the non citizens.

[Winehole23]

you sure know how to sweet talk a gal WHcalling due process quaint is contempt for the Constitution as written. the proper way to change it is by amending the Constitution. providing an institutional check for secret, extrajudicial state murder is a very neat inversion of due process. in fact, it's the very thing due process is supposed to protect us from.

[Winehole23]

Well, myself. If they find a US citizen that is clearly acting with terrorists cells in another country, I'm OK with them taking them out in the same manner they do the non citizens.what a surprise.

[Winehole23]

and btw, the notion that the relatively insignificant threat posed to US lives and national security by terrorism requires us to abandon or redefine elementary rights under the Constitution is risible on its face.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Even if you're, say, an American journalist?

How do you, the common citizen, identify these people to avoid them? Do they have a sign on their forehead?

What if you have family in one of these countries?

It's a giant slippery slope, IMO.

HUGE slippery slope..

[Winehole23]

and btw, the notion that the relatively insignificant threat posed to US lives and national security by terrorism requires us to abandon or redefine elementary rights under the Constitution is risible on its face.or would be, were it not already happening . . .

[ElNono]

so then, in the scenario you describe, the president determines secretly who to kill, and so long as a judge he may have appointed thinks the evidence is good enough, the assassination can proceed?

To be fair such arrangements already happen (ie: FISA, which allows for 4th amendment overrides based on judicial review).

The 4th and 5th amendment rights are not absolute. In Hamdi (IIRC), the SCOTUS stated that there's two competing interests at play, one the individual 4th and 5th amendment rights, and the other the state's interest in national security. Both interests must be carefully weighed in order to make a decision. The thing is, it's the judiciary's duty to apply such weighing.

[ChumpDumper]

so then, in the scenario you describe, the president determines secretly who to kill, and so long as a judge he may have appointed thinks the evidence is good enough, the assassination can proceed?


would the defendant be apprised of the charges against him, be allowed to confront his accuser or challenge the evidence supporting the state's decision to murder him?


if not, you essentially would be asking judges to rubber stamp extra-judicial, due process free murder.Well, say somehow Osama bin Laden was a US citizen. Still against killing him?

I'm all for some FISA-like approval process, but I doubt the kind of targets they have in mind would call for many refusals.

[ChumpDumper]

Even if you're, say, an American journalist?

How do you, the common citizen, identify these people to avoid them? Do they have a sign on their forehead?

What if you have family in one of these countries?

It's a giant slippery slope, IMO.Again, I'll use OBL as an example, because it really happened. At least one of the times a cruise missile strike could have possibly killed him before 9/11, it was called of precisely because of the people with him at the time.

Nowadays, it's still technically war. Stop that technicality through Congress and go from there. Good luck on having Congress take back its balls.

[SA210]

White House Drone Response To Media Harks Back To Bush Years

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/06/white-house-drone-media-_n_2632538.html

NEW YORK -- During Tuesday’s White House briefing, press secretary Jay Carney repeatedly directed reporters (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/05/jay-carney-drone-memo-white-house-reporters_n_2625080.html?utm_hp_ref=media) asking about the Obama administration’s drone policy to a confidential Justice Department white paper that provides the legal rationale for killing American citizens believed to be associated with al Qaeda.

Reporters have long sought more details about the legal justification for drone strikes aimed at Americans without a trial. The Obama administration, which promised years back to be “the most open and transparent in history,” successfully fought (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/06/obama-drone-program-targeted-killing_n_2631425.html?1360182308) The New York Times' Freedom of Information Act request earlier this month to obtain a classified legal memo reportedly justifying the deadly drone strike Anwar al-Awlaki, an American cleric linked to al Qaeda.

NBC News reporter Michael Isikoff obtained a copy of a 16-page, unclassified white paper (http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite) sent in June to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees. The scoop has driven the news cycle, taking on added significance given that White House adviser John Brennan, the oft-described drone architect of the Obama administration, will surely face questions on the subject Thursday at his confirmation hearing to become CIA director.

It's unclear why the White House couldn't have provided reporters with the unclassified white paper earlier, given long-running questions about the legality of the administration's drone program and and a media debate (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/drone-media-coverage_n_2474250.html)that's heated up in recent weeks, rather than only addressing the paper after a news organization publishes it.

However, Isikoff, a veteran Washington reporter, said he isn't surprised by the chain of events. Isikoff told The Huffington Post he encountered the “same scenario” during the George W. Bush administration when it came to controversial national security issues, such as memos (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2004/05/16/memos-reveal-war-crimes-warnings.html)outlining concerns about war crimes.

“It’s very reminiscent of the way these things played out during the Bush administration,” Isikoff said. “There was a complete reluctance to acknowledge anything related to enhanced interrogation techniques and warrantless wiretapping and other controversial policies until reporters fleshed out details and got a hold of documents and made them public.”
Since Isikoff posted the memo on Monday, Carney has directed reporters to the document during press briefings.


“I would point you to the now-released -- it was not meant for public release, but it's not classified -- the now-released white paper, which goes into some detail on that very issue,” Carney said. To another reporter, Carney said, “I would point you to the paper that we've been talking about that generated the stories today.”


Carney, again, said he “would point [to] the speeches that have been given by senior administration officials to the document that we’ve been discussing here.” Carney told another reporter Tuesday that “since it is out there, you should read it” and that “it’s a click away.”


After a reporter asked whether the White House would officially release the white paper, Carney mentioned that it’s already online, a reference to NBC News’ website, and then referred further questions to the Justice Department. Justice will not publish the document online, a department spokeswoman told The Huffington Post.

When not pointing to the white paper, Carney has often referred reporters to earlier public statements from officials.

That's something he's done previously in response to questions generated by a major drones-related scoop. Following The New York Times bombshell front-page story (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all) in May on the Obama administration’s terrorist “kill list,” Carney referred reporters to Brenann’s speech (http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the-efficacy-and-ethics-us-counterterrorism-strategy) at the Wilson Center weeks prior.

Even as reporters have new questions following the publication of the white paper, Carney has repeatedly directed questioners back to the same speech by Brennan, along with past public comments from Attorney General Eric Holder.

On Wednesday’s front page, The New York Times reported (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/world/middleeast/with-brennan-pick-a-light-on-drone-strikes-hazards.html?ref=todayspaper) on the existence of a secret drone base in Saudi Arabia -- a detail several news organizations had originally withheld (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/06/ny-times-secret-drone-base-washington-post_n_2631417.html?utm_hp_ref=media) at the CIA’s request -- along with criticism from former military and intelligence officials that drone strikes could create more anti-American militants.

When asked Wednesday about that potential impact of drone strikes, Carney told a reporter that “in terms of the broader effort, I would refer you to the Pentagon,” before again referencing Brennan’s past public statements.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgTydr4gAaI

[SA210]

TYT: Deadly Drone Strikes - Obama is 'Serious'


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbgyVHPuEAI





White House Drone Response To Media Harks Back To Bush Years

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/06/white-house-drone-media-_n_2632538.html

NEW YORK -- During Tuesday’s White House briefing, press secretary Jay Carney repeatedly directed reporters (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/05/jay-carney-drone-memo-white-house-reporters_n_2625080.html?utm_hp_ref=media) asking about the Obama administration’s drone policy to a confidential Justice Department white paper that provides the legal rationale for killing American citizens believed to be associated with al Qaeda.

Reporters have long sought more details about the legal justification for drone strikes aimed at Americans without a trial. The Obama administration, which promised years back to be “the most open and transparent in history,” successfully fought (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/06/obama-drone-program-targeted-killing_n_2631425.html?1360182308) The New York Times' Freedom of Information Act request earlier this month to obtain a classified legal memo reportedly justifying the deadly drone strike Anwar al-Awlaki, an American cleric linked to al Qaeda.

NBC News reporter Michael Isikoff obtained a copy of a 16-page, unclassified white paper (http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite) sent in June to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees. The scoop has driven the news cycle, taking on added significance given that White House adviser John Brennan, the oft-described drone architect of the Obama administration, will surely face questions on the subject Thursday at his confirmation hearing to become CIA director.

It's unclear why the White House couldn't have provided reporters with the unclassified white paper earlier, given long-running questions about the legality of the administration's drone program and and a media debate (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/drone-media-coverage_n_2474250.html)that's heated up in recent weeks, rather than only addressing the paper after a news organization publishes it.

However, Isikoff, a veteran Washington reporter, said he isn't surprised by the chain of events. Isikoff told The Huffington Post he encountered the “same scenario” during the George W. Bush administration when it came to controversial national security issues, such as memos (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2004/05/16/memos-reveal-war-crimes-warnings.html)outlining concerns about war crimes.

“It’s very reminiscent of the way these things played out during the Bush administration,” Isikoff said. “There was a complete reluctance to acknowledge anything related to enhanced interrogation techniques and warrantless wiretapping and other controversial policies until reporters fleshed out details and got a hold of documents and made them public.”
Since Isikoff posted the memo on Monday, Carney has directed reporters to the document during press briefings.


“I would point you to the now-released -- it was not meant for public release, but it's not classified -- the now-released white paper, which goes into some detail on that very issue,” Carney said. To another reporter, Carney said, “I would point you to the paper that we've been talking about that generated the stories today.”


Carney, again, said he “would point [to] the speeches that have been given by senior administration officials to the document that we’ve been discussing here.” Carney told another reporter Tuesday that “since it is out there, you should read it” and that “it’s a click away.”


After a reporter asked whether the White House would officially release the white paper, Carney mentioned that it’s already online, a reference to NBC News’ website, and then referred further questions to the Justice Department. Justice will not publish the document online, a department spokeswoman told The Huffington Post.

When not pointing to the white paper, Carney has often referred reporters to earlier public statements from officials.

That's something he's done previously in response to questions generated by a major drones-related scoop. Following The New York Times bombshell front-page story (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all) in May on the Obama administration’s terrorist “kill list,” Carney referred reporters to Brenann’s speech (http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the-efficacy-and-ethics-us-counterterrorism-strategy) at the Wilson Center weeks prior.

Even as reporters have new questions following the publication of the white paper, Carney has repeatedly directed questioners back to the same speech by Brennan, along with past public comments from Attorney General Eric Holder.

On Wednesday’s front page, The New York Times reported (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/world/middleeast/with-brennan-pick-a-light-on-drone-strikes-hazards.html?ref=todayspaper) on the existence of a secret drone base in Saudi Arabia -- a detail several news organizations had originally withheld (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/06/ny-times-secret-drone-base-washington-post_n_2631417.html?utm_hp_ref=media) at the CIA’s request -- along with criticism from former military and intelligence officials that drone strikes could create more anti-American militants.

When asked Wednesday about that potential impact of drone strikes, Carney told a reporter that “in terms of the broader effort, I would refer you to the Pentagon,” before again referencing Brennan’s past public statements.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgTydr4gAaI

[Clipper Nation]

Due process protections need to evolve with what is legally permissible to accomodate the exigencies of the WOT.

Or maybe we should just stop fighting this perpetual war and stop taking a shit on our civil liberties and the Constitution....

I mean, are we REALLY at the point where Team Blue apologists are calling the right of due process "outdated"? :lol

[SA210]

.
Huffington Post: 10 Questions to Ask John Brennan at His CIA Confirmation Hearing


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/medea-benjamin/10-questions-to-ask-john-_b_2623693.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/medea-benjamin/10-questions-to-ask-john-_b_2623693.html)




John Brennan's confirmation hearing to become head of the CIA will take place at the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday, February 7. There is suddenly a flurry of attention around a white paper (http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite) that lays out the administration's legal justification for killing Americans with drones overseas, and some of the Senators are vowing (http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/17798691/illinois-senators-mark-kirk-and-dick-durbin-vow-tough-questions-at-nuclear-forum) to ask Brennan "tough questions," since Brennan has been the mastermind of the lethal drone attacks. But why have the Senators, especially those on the Intelligence Committee who are supposed to exercise oversight of the CIA, waited until now to make public statements about their unease with the killing of Americans that took place back in September and October of 2011? For over a year human rights groups and activists have been trying, unsuccessfully, to get an answer as to why our government killed the 16-year-old American boy Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, and have had no help from the Senators' offices.

We look forward to hearing the Senators question Brennan about the legal justifications used by the Obama administration to kill three Americans (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/foreign-affairs-defense/al-qaeda-in-yemen/relatives-of-americans-killed-in-yemen-drone-strikes-file-suit-against-u-s/) in Yemen, as we are deeply concerned about their deaths and the precedent it sets for the rights of U.S. citizens.

But we are also concerned about the thousands of Pakistanis, Yeminis and Somalis who have been killed by remote control in nations with whom we are not at war. If CODEPINK had a chance to question John Brennan as his hearing on Thursday, here are some questions we would ask:



1. You have claimed (http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes) that due to the precision of drone strikes, there have been only a handful of civilian casualties. How many civilians deaths have you recorded, and in what countries? What proportion of total casualties do those figures represent? How do you regard the sources such as the Bureau of Investigative Journalism that estimates (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/) that drone casualties in Pakistan alone range from 2,629-3,461,with as many as 891 reported to be civilians and 176 reported to be children? Have you reviewed the photographic evidence of death and injury presented by residents of the drone strike areas? If so, what is your response?


2. According to a report in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), Washington "counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants," unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent. Please tell us if this is indeed true, and if so, elaborate on the legal precedent for this categorization. In areas where the U.S. is using drones, fighters do not wear uniforms and regularly intermingle with civilians. How does the CIA distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate targets?


3. In a June 2011 report to Congress, the Obama administration explained (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2011/06/koh_is_my_god_pilot.html) that drone attacks did not require congressional approval under the War Powers Resolution because drone attacks did not involve "sustained fighting," "active exchanges of fire," an involvement of U.S. casualties, or a "serious threat" of such casualties. Is it your understanding that the initiation of lethal force overseas does not require congressional approval?


4. If the legal basis for the use of lethal drones is the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), can this authorization be extended to any country through presidential authority? Are there any geographic limitations on the use of drone strikes? Does the intelligence community have the authority to carry out lethal drone strikes inside the United States? How do you respond to the charge that the U.S. thinks it can send drones anywhere it wants and kill anyone it wants, all on the basis of secret information?


5. Assassination targets are selected using (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/10/how-white-house-kill-list-became-white-house-disposition-matrix/58295/) a "disposition matrix." Please identify the criteria by which a person's name is entered into the matrix. News reports have mentioned that teenagers have been (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all) included in this list. Is there an age criteria?


6. In Pakistan and perhaps elsewhere, the CIA has been authorized to conduct "signature strikes," killing people on the basis of suspicious activity. What are the criteria for authorizing a signature strike? Do you think the CIA should continue to have the right to conduct such strikes? Do you think the CIA should be involved in drone strikes at all, or should this program be turned over to the military? If you think the CIA should return to its original focus on intelligence gathering, why hasn't this happened? As Director of the CIA, will you discontinue the CIA's use of lethal drones?


7. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, which the U.S. has implicitly invoked to justify strikes, requires (http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml) that "measures taken by Members in the exercise of [their] right to self-defense... be immediately reported to the Security Council." Please elaborate on why the United States uses Article 51 to justify drone strikes but ignores the clause demanding transparency.


8. The majority of prisoners incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay were found to be innocent and were released. These individuals landed in Guantanamo as victims of mistaken identity or as a result of bounties for their capture. How likely is it that the intelligence that gets a person killed by a drone strike may be as faulty as that which put innocent individuals in Guantanamo?


9. You have stated (http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2012/12/26/americas-failing-drone-war-in-yemen/) that there is little evidence drone strikes are causing widespread anti-American sentiment or recruits for extremist groups. Do you stand by this statement now, as we have seen an expansion of al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula, possibly triple (http://www.npr.org/2012/11/27/165936280/the-last-refuge-yemen-al-qaida-and-the-u-s) the number that existed when the drone strikes began? Do you have concerns about the "blowback" caused by what General McChrystal has called (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/michael-boyle-visceral-ha_n_2480590.html) a "visceral hatred" of U.S. drones?


10. If a civilian is harmed by a drone strike in Afghanistan, the family is entitled to compensation from U.S. authorities. But this is not the case in other countries where the U.S. government is using lethal drones. Why is this the case? Do you think the U.S. government should help people who are innocent victims of our drone strikes and if so, why haven't you put a program in place to do this?


Stay tuned to www.c-span.org (http://www.c-span.org) at 2:30 p.m. on Thursday to hear the Senators' questions, Brennan's answers and the response from those of us in the audience who don't have many such occasions to express outrage at our government's policy of remote-controlled killing.

[ElNono]

Again, I'll use OBL as an example, because it really happened. At least one of the times a cruise missile strike could have possibly killed him before 9/11, it was called of precisely because of the people with him at the time.

Nowadays, it's still technically war. Stop that technicality through Congress and go from there. Good luck on having Congress take back its balls.

I couldn't tell you what happened with OBL back in that instance you cite, but memos like this one apparently didn't exist back then. My main concern with it is the lack of transparency and oversight. If the executive really feels they're not violating anybody's rights, there's no reason not to seek a declaratory judgment or similar from the SCOTUS (which can also be conducted in secret, if necessary). Especially in such a sensible topic as American lives and rights.

Congress already handed out the AUMF. The executive took that and built a legal house of cards based on it and a couple of court cases. The venue to test the constitutionality of such legalese (both the AUMF itself and this executive legal construction) is the judiciary. That they're not only not involved, but that the executive claims that this legalese is not subject to judiciary review strikes me as incorrect and a violation of separation of powers.

And proper review (pre or post facto) is the bare minimum, IMO. There's other issues at hand here. The language in that memo is vague as hell, both on what it claims 'imminent' means (which is not the meaning of the actual word), and things such as 'associated force'... what is that? how does a regular American makes sure he's not tagged as such? If somebody incorrectly was labeled as such, where does an American challenge that? And so on...

[Blake]

My main concern with it is the lack of transparency and oversight. If the executive really feels they're not violating anybody's rights, there's no reason not to seek a declaratory judgment or similar from the SCOTUS (which can also be conducted in secret, if necessary). Especially in such a sensible topic as American lives and rights.


I think time might be a reason. By the time the President gets the ok from the SCOTUS or other entity, the target might be long gone.

[SA210]

What they aren't telling you about Obama's drone assassinations of Americans


http://www.examiner.com/article/what-they-aren-t-telling-you-about-obama-s-drone-assassinations-of-americans (http://www.examiner.com/article/what-they-aren-t-telling-you-about-obama-s-drone-assassinations-of-americans)

It's legal to drone strike Americans according to the Obama Administration. This is the recent revelation that is dominating news outlets. But is this new?

NBC News (http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite) has revealed a leaked Department of Justice document (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf) explaining the so called legal drone strikes on U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism even without proof. With a "mainstream" news outlet like NBC reporting on such a story, the rest of the lapdog media had no choice but to suddenly show interest.

Even the New York Times last year reported on President Obama's secret kill list (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), which even included a 17-year-old girl.

The U.S. government has already assassinated multiple U.S. citizens with drone strikes. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a 16-year-old Denver, Colo. native, was assassinated via drone (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/robert-gibbs-anwar-al-awlaki_n_2012438.html) while in Yemen in 2011 a week after his father was assassinated.

The boy's father, American-born Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical cleric and Al Qaeda leader according to the U.S. government, was assassinated without charge or trial based on the assumption that he was a threat. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was bombarded with questions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6bgwZGZiIo) by reporters about how the Obama Administration could legally murder U.S. citizens without proof of a crime to which they could give no straight answer.

Despite the murder or indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charge (http://pandaunite.org/) being illegal, some argue that a man as dangerous as Awlaki, who had been tied to 26 terrorism cases according to the U.S. government, had to be taken out before any more damage could be done.

One may wonder where the U.S. got these claims since a Freedom of Information request revealed (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jDpLVG9sjWwp59Vyd5fQ6AYy2OuA?docId%3DCNG.ace 288598d38f8e94805dc5d9fc7699c.41) that Awlaki had been held by the U.S. at least twice and then released. The documents indicated that he had been held for at least eight months between 2006 and 2007. Even more disturbing is the FBI's admission (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/01/top-official-admits-fbi-had-al-awlaki-in-custody-but-let-him-go-in-2002/) that Awlaki was detained in 2002 then quickly released.

One may ask why a man wanted dead or alive by the CIA has been captured and released multiple times, but it gets worse. In what has to be some of the most ridiculous and shocking news to ever be released was the admission that Awlaki had dined at the Pentagon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs2r4Jj-ZUU) with top U.S. military leaders just months after 9/11. Why is a top Al Qaeda leader eating at the nation’s military command center after the 9/11 attacks when the government says he preached to three of the hijackers (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/FtHoodInvestigation/anwar-awlaki/story?id=9200720&page=1#.UBqX5USebBU)?

To anyone even remotely paying attention to the world around them, this whole situation seems like a comedy skit or nightmare from the twilight zone. Despite all of this being readily available news, the media now refuses to bring these important points into the conversation. But yet again, it gets much worse.

Awlaki had ties to almost every "failed plot" within the United States. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the "Underwear Bomber," had been coached by Awlaki according to the U.S. government (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/10/anwar-al-awlaki-underwear-bomber-federal-court-memo_n_1269703.html), yet was put on the plane by the U.S. government.

Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy admitted live on C-SPAN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c68E1V60rAk) that he was forced to get Abdulmutallab on the plane after he originally denied his visa, a bombshell that the media refused to touch. Even lawyer Kurt Haskell who was on the flight blew the whistle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqevkKU6VN0) on what he witnessed.

The connections are too many to list but the most frightening aspect of all this is the public’s lack of ability to connect the dots. Many have, though. Mickey McCarter, writer for Homeland Security Today, was grilled by callers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peCjS_lTu2k) about the revelations over the Underwear Bomber live on C-SPAN.

In light of what’s going on in the Middle East as well, the real question by the media and citizens should be why is the government claiming it needs the ability to murder Americans to keep them safe from groups they are actively supporting? Are they really worried about these groups or are they worried about the American citizens?

[SA210]

Yup, Ben Swann was all over this way before the msm started telling you half the truth.

Here is his new segment on the issue.



It is a story that has made national headlines in the past 24 hours. But a story Reality Check has been telling you for nearly 2 years. NBC News obtained a copy of the Obama administration's rules for assassinating U.S. citizens. What President Obama told Ben about this kill list in a face to face interview. The details in a Reality Check you won't see anywhere else.



Reality Check: President Obama's rules for assassinating U.S. citizens?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTXt3zVlRKo


lol Still no answers on the 16 year old American boy who was murdered in an ENTIRELY separate strike than his father. Props to Ben Swann to see beyond the spin :tu

[ChumpDumper]

I couldn't tell you what happened with OBL back in that instance you cite, but memos like this one apparently didn't exist back then. My main concern with it is the lack of transparency and oversight. If the executive really feels they're not violating anybody's rights, there's no reason not to seek a declaratory judgment or similar from the SCOTUS (which can also be conducted in secret, if necessary). Especially in such a sensible topic as American lives and rights.

Congress already handed out the AUMF. The executive took that and built a legal house of cards based on it and a couple of court cases. The venue to test the constitutionality of such legalese (both the AUMF itself and this executive legal construction) is the judiciary. That they're not only not involved, but that the executive claims that this legalese is not subject to judiciary review strikes me as incorrect and a violation of separation of powers.

And proper review (pre or post facto) is the bare minimum, IMO. There's other issues at hand here. The language in that memo is vague as hell, both on what it claims 'imminent' means (which is not the meaning of the actual word), and things such as 'associated force'... what is that? how does a regular American makes sure he's not tagged as such? If somebody incorrectly was labeled as such, where does an American challenge that? And so on...All good points -- but the Constitution takes a regular beating during times of war. Just the way it goes. As I hinted at before, I think we're back in the assassination business for the duration -- I'm certainly fine with another branch of government finding its balls again and doing something, anything about it. Not holding my breath, though.

[ElNono]

I think time might be a reason. By the time the President gets the ok from the SCOTUS or other entity, the target might be long gone.

Do it post-facto. Won't bring the dead back, but if mistakes are made, then somebody else pays the price too. Accountability. At the very least try to find out if the assassinations of Americans is legal at all to begin with.


All good points -- but the Constitution takes a regular beating during times of war. Just the way it goes. As I hinted at before, I think we're back in the assassination business for the duration -- I'm certainly fine with another branch of government finding its balls again and doing something, anything about it. Not holding my breath, though.

Agreed.

[ChumpDumper]

Do it post-facto. Won't bring the dead back, but if mistakes are made, then somebody else pays the price too. Accountability. At the very least try to find out if the assassinations of Americans is legal at all to begin with.I'll put in a little excerpt from one of my favorite books on terra:
'Extraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgment of the host government.... The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass."

[ElNono]

I'll put in a little excerpt from one of my favorite books on terra:

Thanks. I would say international law is something the US and especially US politicians simply don't particularly care about. That's why the US has always pretty much ignored the ICC. This is American lives now, and we're talking US law, and the US constitution. It's a different beast. I would agree with you there's not enough public backslash to do anything about it right now, but IMO, it's still wrong.

[ChumpDumper]

Thanks. I would say international law is something the US and especially US politicians simply don't particularly care about. That's why the US has always pretty much ignored the ICC. This is American lives now, and we're talking US law, and the US constitution. It's a different beast. I would agree with you there's not enough public backslash to do anything about it right now, but IMO, it's still wrong.Again, I agree in principle -- but In don't see the slope slipping out of the Islamic terrorist milieu tbh. And the quote kind of shows what I figure most executive branch types would think anyway: do shit until someone says you can't.

[SA210]

Neocons support Obama's drones because he's continues Bush's illegal murderous policies

Cenk of The Young Turks with the goods, again :tu


"Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) will offer a resolution next week commending President Barack Obama's use of drones and the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki.

"Every member of Congress needs to get on board," Graham said. "It's not fair to the president to let him, leave him out there alone quite frankly. He's getting hit from libertarians and the left."*

After the leak of the secret white paper memos which detailed a supposed legal justification for the Obama administration drone attack people with little to no reason, the president took lots of criticism. Except from his new backers...the neoconservatives. Is this a sign? Cenk Uygur breaks it down.


TYT: Neocons Love Obama's Drones


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXIip3jz3JE

[ChumpDumper]

Would have been totally cool had we used and armed those drones sooner.

[Winehole23]

Well, say somehow Osama bin Laden was a US citizen. Still against killing him?It's one thing to do it covertly, another to have an announced policy rationalizing and normalizing extrajudicial force against US citizens. What we are perceived to be, and represent ourselves to be, matters.


I'm all for some FISA-like approval process, but I doubt the kind of targets they have in mind would call for many refusals.There's no FISA-like approval process for the policy that exists. In fact, it's expressly ruled out. Do you have a problem with that?

[Wild Cobra]

Neocons support Obama's drones because...
OK, I guess neocons do. Do you think conservative support these attacks?

[Winehole23]

To be fair such arrangements already happen (ie: FISA, which allows for 4th amendment overrides based on judicial review).Difference of degree. It's one thing to surveille secretly, another to deprive people of life and liberty secretly. Plus, the judicial check you allude to Obama expressly rules out.


The 4th and 5th amendment rights are not absolute. In Hamdi (IIRC), the SCOTUS stated that there's two competing interests at play, one the individual 4th and 5th amendment rights, and the other the state's interest in national security. Both interests must be carefully weighed in order to make a decision. The thing is, it's the judiciary's duty to apply such weighing.Again, the policy that exists rules this out. You're talking about a counterfactual: these are, according to the theory, powers inhering in the executive, reviewable by no one.

[Winehole23]

Or maybe we should just stop fighting this perpetual war and stop taking a shit on our civil liberties and the Constitution....

I mean, are we REALLY at the point where Team Blue apologists are calling the right of due process "outdated"? :lolvy65 is no blue team apologist. she's a post-modern apologist for force, against traditional US liberties.

[ChumpDumper]

It's one thing to do it covertly, another to have an announced policy rationalizing and normalizing extrajudicial force against US citizens. What we are perceived to be, and represent ourselves to be, matters.So you would have been OK with everything had the rationale not leaked?


There's no FISA-like approval process for the policy that exists. In fact, it's expressly ruled out. Do you have a problem with that?I know there isn't. I'm saying what I would like. Again, I have trouble accepting the slope will be slipped, so I'm not upset enough to do more than post on a message board. Are you?

[Winehole23]

Again, I agree in principle -- but In don't see the slope slipping out of the Islamic terrorist milieu tbh.can't imagine a corrupt executive? how naive.

[ChumpDumper]

can't imagine a corrupt executive? how naive.OK, whom do you think Obama is going to kill due to his corruption?

[Winehole23]

So you would have been OK with everything had the rationale not leaked?not at all. I believe in due process, for US citizens at least, expediency not countervailing.


I know there isn't. I'm saying what I would like. Again, I have trouble accepting the slope will be slipped, so I'm not upset enough to do more than post on a message board. Are you?I'm content to express my opinion on a bulletin board for the moment.

You can't imagine a corrupt executive. I'd say that's a fault of imagination. It's a government of men and women, not angels.

[Winehole23]

OK, whom do you think Obama is going to kill due to his corruption?I don't think so. But I sure wouldn't rule out some future president doing it. It's a bad fucking idea to give such regal discretion to the President. And even worse for him to arrogate it for himself.

[Winehole23]

not at all. I believe in due process, for US citizens at least, expediency not countervailing.capture his ass and try him in court. hell, worked with Abdel Rahman.

[Winehole23]

criminal justice still fucking works, even for terrorism. yeah, it's a hassle, but it's worth it.

[ChumpDumper]

not at all. I believe in due process, for US citizens at least, expediency not countervailing.

I'm content to express my opinion on a bulletin board for the moment.Good to know you feel so strongly.


You can't imagine a corrupt executive. I'd say that's a fault of imagination. It's a government of men and women, not angels.True, but I'm going by history here. The only one I can see killing a motherfucker is Jackson and he'd probably just as soon do it himself in broad daylight with plenty of witnesses.


I don't think so. But I sure wouldn't rule out some future president doing it.It's not impossible, but like you I'm not so concerned about the possibility to do anything about it.

[Winehole23]

]It's not impossible, but like you I'm not so concerned about the possibility to do anything about it.expressing one's opinion isn't nothing. close, but it's not nothing.

[Winehole23]

Good to know you feel so strongly.God, you're so fake. What am I supposed to do?

l

[ChumpDumper]

expressing one's opinion isn't nothing. close, but it's not nothing.Very close.


God, you're so fake. What am I supposed to do?Fake about what? I think I'm being quite real here.

[Winehole23]

True, but I'm going by history here. The only one I can see killing a motherfucker is Jackson and he'd probably just as soon do it himself in broad daylight with plenty of witnesses.power has broader ambitions, possibly, than you can imagine.

then again, you can't really imagine that, can you?

[ChumpDumper]

power has broader ambitions, possibly, than you can imagine.

then again, you can't really imagine that, can you?I just did.

Still seems stunningly unlikely.

[Winehole23]

Fake about what? I think I'm being quite real here.of course you're completely authentic. my bad.

[ChumpDumper]

of course you're completely authentic. my bad.Fake about what?

[Winehole23]

I just did.

Still seems stunningly unlikely.so did preventive detention and due process free assassinations of US citizens, until recently.

[Winehole23]

Fake about what?sarcasm is fake, pretty much by definition.

[Wild Cobra]

WH...

You must be bored, spending so much time with a troll...

[Winehole23]

again, what do you think I'm supposed to do besides bitch? is it a fault that I don't?

[ChumpDumper]

so did preventive detention and due process free assassinations of US citizens, until recently.Nah, the former has been done many times before and I'd kind of be surprised if I couldn't find an example of the latter. I'll start looking.

[ChumpDumper]

sarcasm is fake, pretty much by definition.Oh, so you're just saying I'm sarcastic.

I'm wounded.

^Also sarcastic.

[Winehole23]

Nah, the former has been done many times before and I'd kind of be surprised if I couldn't find an example of the latter. I'll start looking.great. show your work, boss.

btw, would precedence justify it, for you?

[ChumpDumper]

again, what do you think I'm supposed to do besides bitch? is it a fault that I don't?At the least I'd think a search for an e-petition you could click on....

An email to a representative or senator would be expecting too much of anyone here.

[Winehole23]

love to see what you got on the due process free assassinations. as for preventive detention, there's the detention of Japanese-Americans in WWII and Germans in WWI, so you got something there. do you defend that?

[Winehole23]

At the least I'd think a search for an e-petition you could click on....

An email to a representative or senator would be expecting too much of anyone here.you'd be wrong about that.

[Winehole23]

if I feel strongly enough, I'll actually send it snail mail.

[ChumpDumper]

great. show your work, boss.If I find something, sure.


btw, would precedence justify it, for you?What, you're not jumping to a conclusion like in the other thread?

[ChumpDumper]

if I feel strongly enough, I'll actually send it snail mail.If you do, show your work, boss.

[Winehole23]

What, you're not jumping to a conclusion like in the other thread?sometimes you have to goad a person to say what they mean. I'm sure you wouldn't understand.

[Wild Cobra]

Ding Ding...

Round 6...

[Winehole23]

If you do, show your work, boss.what, you want me to post my letters to the US Congress here? essentially, I already do that. would be redundant.

[ChumpDumper]

sometimes you have to goad a person to say what they mean. I'm sure you wouldn't understand.You're so fake.


what, you want me to post my letters to the US Congress here? essentially, I already do that. would be redundant.I said if you do.

In this case.

A picture of the letter will be fine.

[Winehole23]

are you finding anything yet? seems you're getting a paper asshole, CD.

[Winehole23]

You're so fake.

I said if you do.

In this case.

A picture of the letter will be fine.you post yours, I'll post mine.

[Winehole23]

then again, you probbly don't really care so much to write your representatives, do you?

[ChumpDumper]

are you finding anything yet? seems you're getting a paper asshole, CD.Never said I would find one.


then again, you probbly don't really care so much to write your representatives, do you?Nope.

[Winehole23]

so then you got no room to chide others for apathy.

[Wild Cobra]

so then you got no room to chide others for apathy.
CD always makes up reasons to chide others.

He's a fucking troll...

[ChumpDumper]

so then you got no room to chide others for apathy.don't get so defensive.

I like finding the level of actual activism here. For all the bluster, it's very low.

[ChumpDumper]

WC's feeling left out.

[Winehole23]

I'd kind of be surprised if I couldn't find an example of the latter. I'll start looking.I won't hold my breath.


Never said I would find one.Given up already?

[Winehole23]

I like finding the level of actual activism here. For all the bluster, it's very low.Yours appears to be nil.

[Wild Cobra]

WC's feeling left out.
Not at all. I'm just surprised WH is spending so much time with your pathetic ass.

[ChumpDumper]

I won't hold my breath.OK.


Given up already?No, but the surprise will be mild. Changes nothing.

[ChumpDumper]

Not at all. I'm just surprised WH is spending so much time with your pathetic ass.Think about all the time you spend with me.

Do you feel more or less pathetic?

[Wild Cobra]

Think about all the time you spend with me.

Do you feel more or less pathetic?
I don't think I ever stayed online, posting minute after minute, arguing with you, for as long as the two of you have been at it.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't think I ever stayed online, posting minute after minute, arguing with you, for as long as the two of you have been at it.Well, you're slower witted than either of us. Give yourself a break.

[Winehole23]

I don't think I ever stayed online, posting minute after minute, arguing with you, for as long as the two of you have been at it.WC, that is a bald faced lie. I'm sure I've seen it.

[Winehole23]

lol WC denying he has ever bickered at length with CD.

[Wild Cobra]

If I did, I was doing a bad thing. Can you blame me from trying to save you from the pain of that troll?

Are you up to it:

mI9KhPJ-utE

[ChumpDumper]

He's a big boy, WC. Capable of self-control.

Quit projecting your personal failures on others.

[Wild Cobra]

fixed:


He's a big boy, WC. Capable of self-control.

Quit projecting your personal frustrations on others.

Afterall, you are a master baiter...

[Winehole23]

Can you blame me from trying to save you from the pain of that troll?for me it's not a pain. I find CD amusing.

[Wild Cobra]

it's not a pain. I find CD amusing.
OK.

I don't.

[ChumpDumper]

OK.

I don't.This must make you feel kind of pathetic then.

[Wild Cobra]

This must make you feel kind of pathetic then.
If that makes you feel better to believe that, then have at it.

I don't care.

[Winehole23]

OK.

I don't.I wouldn't pass the time here if it wasn't at least somewhat fun. Why do you?

[Wild Cobra]

I wouldn't pass the time here if it wasn't at least somewhat fun. Why do you?

I'm ready to call it quits. I just finished some program loads on my laptop. Done waiting now, going to do something else now.

[Winehole23]

nighty-nite, WC.

[ChumpDumper]

lol I totally got sidetracked by some weird Lincoln conspiracy stuff while looking up a Union spy who some surmise was assassinated by the government or at least people in the government to shut him up. Not a real example for sure, but a nice crazy read.

[Winehole23]

link or name of? I like a nice crazy read.

[symple19]

Well, you're slower witted than either of us. Give yourself a break.

:lmao

awesome

[SA210]

;
;
Ouch.. :rollin

Jon Stewart Shreds Obama On Hypocrisy Over Drones: You're Only 'Transparent About The Last Guy's Secrets'


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-obama-drone-policy-memo-daily-show-2013-2#ixzz2KE9U1saL



http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/5113b17feab8ea7d6d000001-400-300/stewart-35.jpg


Daily Show host Jon Stewart tore into President Barack Obama Wednesday night for what he perceived as hypocrisy on transparency over his administration's controversial policy on drone strikes.

Stewart found the recently leaked white paper outlining the government's case for using lethal force on American citizens abroad to be disconcerting overall. He had a particular issue with the condition that a strike can only be carried out if the person presents an "imminent threat," the definition of which was very loosely defined.
"So, imminent threat, in other words, is 'imminent or not imminent,'" Stewart quipped.


But Stewart took particular issue with the difference in the administration's attitude toward being transparent with its own controversial policies vs. the Bush administration's policies. He pointed out how former Obama senior adviser David Axelrod was fine with releasing the Bush administration's so-called "torture memos" to take a last swipe at Bush.


"So we don't mind you knowing about [expletive] we do — when we don't do it anymore," Stewart said of the administration's thinking. "We're happy to share irrelevant information with the public. We told you we were going to be transparent — we just didn't tell you it was going to be about the last guy's secrets."


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-obama-drone-policy-memo-daily-show-2013-2#ixzz2KE9BrKgK





Part 1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-6-2013/skygall


Part 2
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-6-2013/skygall---drone-strike-details